Skip to main content

Full text of "The Beginnings of Christianity : part I, the Acts of the apostles"

See other formats

¢ beehbOeO T9dT E 

X ey 



2 ky i" (y v ay 
mitt ¥ RHO a : hp ti 
aly seh 
ve a Wes } 

Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2006 with funding from 

Microsoft Corporation 



















ob eee 



£3 ae 

bed ,: 

; ag ; 
“ae eis, ed viet : 
a ae ' ‘oll | 


More than twenty years have elapsed since Kirsopp Lake and I 
agreed in a conversation in the University of Leiden that an 
exhaustive study of the Acts of the Apostles was necessary in 
order to prepare for a right understanding of the history of the 
Christian Church. We had arrived at the conclusion that, despite 
the noble labours of many generations of scholars, and the light 
thrown on the book by antiquarians, the real problem of Acts 
as an historical even more than a religious document had to 
be faced. Impressed by the magnitude of the task, we resolved 
to secure the aid of the most competent scholars we could 
command. We were fortunate in securing the support of Messrs. 
Macmillan and Co. as publishers, for whose generosity in pro- 
ducing these volumes without regard to anything but to the 
excellence of the work we can never be sufficiently grateful. 
Our undertaking began in Cambridge, where I was fortunate 
enough to obtain the co-operation of Professor Burkitt, who 
consented to preside at a Seminar, which was largely attended by 
scholars of the most varied interests in the University, not only 
theological, but historical, classical, mathematical, and Oriental. 
Visitors were often present from Oxford, London, and different 
parts of England ; and, as the minutes kept by me as Secretary 
of the Seminar show, the United States and Canada were not 
unrepresented. Lake paid frequent visits from Leiden, where he 
held a professorial chair, to watch the progress of our delibera- 
tions. This preparatory work went on for a year or more, then 
came the War; and Lake and I, who had found spheres of work 



in America, selected a body of coadjutors and began the task of 
compiling the first volume in Boston and New York. 

The task before us had now become an international enter- 
prise. In our group Great Britain, Holland, Canada, the United 
States and Germany co-operated. Jew and Gentile showed equal 
zeal in assisting us. To mention some of the names of the living 
friends who helped us might be invidious ; but in the course of 
twenty years it is inevitable that some should have already passed 
away. Among these we may mention one who never hesitated 
to place his vast fund of learning at our disposal, and spared no 
time nor pains in assistance and advice. To George Foot Moore, 
Professor in Harvard University, the Editors owe a debt which 
it is not possible to exaggerate, and the same may be said of 
Frederick Conybeare, Hon. Fellow of University College, Oxford. 
The other contributors to the first three volumes, who are now 
no longer with us, are C. W. Emmet, Fellow of the same Uni- 
versity College, Oxford; Forbes Duckworth, Professor of Trinity 
College, Toronto, and Clifford H. Moore, Pope Professor of Latin in 
Harvard University, whose early deaths all who knew and appre- 
‘ciated them must deplore. Of those who attended the Seminar in 
Cambridge, two scholars, Israel Abrahams, the University Reader 
in Talmudic, and Arthur Charles Jennings of Jesus College, are no 
longer with us. Their advice and help whilst the scheme was in 
process of development was of the greatest value to the Editors. 

To those who happily are still alive, I—and my colleague is in 
cordial sympathy with me—desire to express heartfelt gratitude, 
not only for the zeal and scholarship displayed in their contribu- 
tions, but for their readiness to accept the suggestions necessary 
to reduce the whole work to a consistent whole. 

The first and second volumes, which are introductory to the 
study of Acts, appeared respectively in 1920 and 1922. Volume I. 
provoked a certain amount of criticism, mainly on account of 
what appeared to some the detached attitude in which a book of 
Holy Scripture was approached in a thoroughly scientific spirit. 
Volume III., on the Text of Acts, was entrusted by the Editors to 


one man; and they were singularly fortunate in securing their 
friend James Hardy Ropes of Harvard University for the purpose. 
The Text of Acts, as every scholar knows, is one of the most 
interesting problems, not only in the New Testament, but in 
textual criticism generally, and it is not too much to say that, 
if this costly book can never appeal to the general public, no 
student of Greek mss. can safely neglect it ; and that although it 
may be hereafter supplemented, it is not likely ever to be super- 
seded. Volume III. appeared in 1926 and deservedly received 
the approval of the learned world. 

There remained only the Commentary on Acts, the manage- 
ment of which Dr. Lake took entirely on his own shoulders, and 
he has, much to my satisfaction, received invaluable assistance 
from our mutual friend Dr. Henry Cadbury as co-editor. For 
this they were, in my judgement, admirably fitted; and it is a 
matter for sincere congratulation that they have brought their 
arduous task to a conclusion. Their two volumes mark the 
culmination of years of strenuous labour. Judged solely by 
the extent of the Commentary, and the variety of information 
contained therein, no book of the Bible has been subjected to so 
exhaustive a treatment in a single work; and its Editors are 
worthy of the highest commendation for a splendid achieve- 
ment I, as their friend and colleague, am delighted to add my 


New YorK, 
September 1932. 

Ls Ae at 3 eae. teh PEN 0 

: et) nant adap: Sie | st! se 
‘ “terdh {ee a) mur we 

oan onding Lava 

| 7 
1 Le era fa 


Danny OE baits 



A20 e . 
a pONY Say yess 

® Avwie oa x pha Oy 

pin :* 







By Kirsorp LAKE: 
1. The Text of the Preface and its Relation to the Gospel 
2. The Absence of a dé-clause 
3. The Composition of Acts 



. Tue Ascension. By Kirsopp LAKE 
. Tue Deatu oF JupDAs. By Krirsopp LAKE 

. Maptvs. By Roszrt P. Casry, Ph.D., Professor of History 

and Philosophy of Religions, University of Cincinnati 

. Toe TWELVE AND THE AposTLES. By Kirsopp LAKE: 

1. The Twelve A 

2. The Names of the Peas” 
3. The Word AzdaroXos 

4. The Apostles in Acts 

(i.) The Requirements made from Converts 

(ii.) The Names used for Converts 
(iii.) The Evidence for Syncretistic Cults . 

Tue Hoty Spreir. By Kirsopp Lake . 


By Kirsopp Lake: 

1. The Opinion of the Writer 
2. The Facts, the Source of Acts, and the Editor 

. Taz Name, BarrismM, AND THE LayING ON OF HANDs. 

By Sitva New, A.M. 







XII. Tue Communism or AcTs I. AND IV.-VI. AND THE AP- 




Smion Maaus. By Rosert P. Casry 

PavL AND THE Maaus. By Artuur Darsy Nock, M.A., 
Professor of the History of Religion, Harvard University 


FOLLOWING IT. By Krirsopp Lake 

. Tue ApostoLic CouNCcIL oF JERUSALEM. By Kirsopp 


. Pavw’s Controversies. By Krirsorp Laks 

. Pavt’s Route in Asta Minor. By Krirsorp Lake: 

i" Perga—Antioch—Iconium 
2. Lystra—Derbe 
3. The Route of Paul’s ‘ Third J ourney ’ 

. THE UnkNown Gop. By Kirsopp Lake: 

(i.) Heathen Analogies . 
(ii.) Christian Exegesis 

. ‘Your own Poets.” By Krrsorp LAKE 

. ARTEMIS OF EPHEsvs. By Lity Ross Taytor, Ph.D., 

Professor of Latin, Bryn Mawr College . 

. THe Astarcus. By Lity Ross Taytor. 

. THe Micuican Papyrus Fraament 1571. By Sinva 

NEw . 

. Dust AND GARMENTS. By Henry J. CapBury 


JupAisM. By Vincent M. Scramuzza, Ph.D., Assistant 
Professor of History, Smith College 

Roman Law AND THE TRIAL OF PavuL. By Henry J. 
I. Under Arrest by Claudius liptiie ‘ 
II. In Custody under the Procurators 
III. The Appeal to Caesar 
IV. The Outcome of the Action nisin Paul 

Tue Winps. By Kirsorp Laxe and Henry J. CapBuRY 

‘Yro(wpara. By Henry J. CapBury 


XXIX. Tue Tittzs or Jusus 1n Acts. By Henry J. CapBury 

Henry J. CADBURY : 

XXXI. THE Summarizs 1n Acts. By Henry J. CapBury 
XXX. THe SpEEcHES In Acts. By Hunry J. CapBury 

XXXII. THe Roman Army. By T. R. S. Brovenron, Ph.D., 
Associate Professor of Latin, Bryn Mawr College : 

(i.) The Organization of the Roman Army in the First 
Century , 
(ii.) The Roman Army in = ait Palewiine ‘ 
(iii.) Three Passages in Acts of Special Difficulty 

/XXXIV. Tor Curonotocy or Acts. By Kirsorp Lak 
I. The Death of Herod Agrippa I. 

II. The Famine in the Time of Claudius 
III. The Proconsulship of Sergius Paulus 

IV. The Edict of Claudius ERS the Jews ore 


V. The Proconsulship of Gallio . 

VI. The Procuratorship of Porcius Festus 

Aots. By Krirsorp LAKE ‘ 
1. The Mount of Olives and Bethany . : 
. The Upper Room and the Tomb of David 
. The Court-room of the Sanhedrin 
. The Prisons mentioned in Acts 
. The Roman Barracks 
. The Beautiful Gate 

XXXVI. THe Famity TREE or THE HeERops. By Henry J. 

aoa pp WwW dD 

XXXVII. Luctus or Cyrene. By Henry J. Cappury 

Inprex I. Piaces, NamMzs, AND SUBJECTS 
InpEx II. Quorations : 

(a) Old and New Testaments . 

(6) Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old iGeclonsat 
(c) Rabbinic Writings . 

(d) Classical and Early Christian Writers 











(a) Inscriptions . 542 
(6) Papyri a é 544 
(c) Biblical Apparatus Criticus 544 
Inpex IV. Greek Worps 545 
Inpex V. Semitic Worps anp TERMS 548 
Collotype of Micntcan Papyrus 1571 . : Between 264 and 265 
GENEALOGICAL TaBLE . ‘ : ‘ ‘ . To face 488 

Map of Asta Minor. : : , : End of volume 


Nore I. THe Prerack to Acts AND THE CoMPosITION or Acts 
By Krrsopp LAKE 

Tue difficulties in the Preface to Acts are a complex of literary, critical, The Preface. 
and textual problems which must be treated separately before being 
considered finally in relation to each other. Clearness therefore demands 
a summary before any detailed discussion. 

The Preface certainly begins with a description of the contents of 
the ‘first book’—the Gospel according to Luke—but as it stands at 
present it gives a very imperfect summary, and alludes to a period of 
forty days of which the Gospel gives no hint. Moreover, the text of 
the Preface has obviously suffered in transmission, and though some of 
the details remain obscure, in two or three of the efforts to improve it 
attempts can be recognized to deal with the difficulty of interpretation. 

Whatever text and whatever interpretation be adopted the structure 
of the Preface offends against the canons of Greek writing. The pév 
in vs. 1 is not balanced by a 8é-clause, nor by any adequate substitute 
for 5é, and there is no description of the subjects to be dealt with in the 
second book, as custom would have dictated and the opening of the Preface 
leads us to expect. 

When these two problems have been discussed—they cannot be 
settled—the main question is the light, or possibly the darkness, which 
they throw on the composition of the whole book. 

1. The Text of the Preface and its Relation to the Gospel 

The Preface obviously is intended to give a description of the The text. 
first book. If jpéaro be not wholly otiose the first verse of Acts means 
‘I wrote the first book concerning all which Jesus did and taught from 
the beginning,’ which is a fair description of the beginning of the Gospel, 
even though John the Baptist is omitted ; similarly the second verse 
describes the end of the Gospel ‘ until the day when, etc.’ The problem 
is how much is covered by the ‘etc.’ and how far it really corresponds 
to the Gospel, and these questions are greatly complicated by doubt as 
to the original text. 

The text of the Preface, according to B, followed by most editors, is The neutral 
Tov pav mparov Adyov éronrdpnv Tepi wavrwv, & Oeddure, Sv yp~aro "ee 
*Incots ouiv te Kal SiddoKev axpe As npépas evterAdpevos ois 

VOL. V 1 B 


droordous dud TvEbparos dyiov ovs efehéeEaro avedn pen: ois Kal 
Taperrygev éavrov (ovra pera. 70 maGeiv avTov €v modAois TeKpnpiols, 
&e Tpepov. p omravopevos adrois Kal A€yov Ta Tept Tis Baorr<ias Tow 
€ov. Kal ovvaifopevos mapiry yerhev avrois did ‘TeporoAtpuv pa 
xopifer Oa, adda. Tepupevelv THhv erayyeXiav Tov TaTpds Vv HKovaaTE 
pov’ ote ‘Twdvvys pev Barrurev dart, ipeis 8é ev rvedpart Barre 

The Western TOjoerGe ayiy od pera todas Tatras ipépas. The Western text, 


The original 


partly reconstructed from the Latin, seems to have been rdv pev mporov 
Adyov éxounrapny wept ravtwv, & Oeddirc, dv HpEaro "Incovs roreiv te 
kat SiddoKew év jpépg jp? Tovs dmoardAous e€eAEato Sia rvedparos 
dyiov kal éxédevoe Kynpiooev Td evayyéALov, ois Kal mapeotnoe KTH. 
... kal @s ovvadifopevos per aitav tapiyyeAev KtA. Ropes (see 
Vol. III. pp. 2 and 256 ff.) accepts the major variants of the Western text 
as representing the original. 

On such a complicated question disagreement is not unnatural 
among even the closest allies, and this is one of relatively few places in 
which I differ from Ropes, though the difference is small and unim- 
portant for the theory of the history of the text. It has, however, a 
more serious bearing on the exegesis of the passage. I cannot think 
that év 7 pepe for dxpu is epas or the omission of ots after 
drooréAots is original. éfeAéfaro can, it seems to me, refer only to 
Luke vi. 13 ff., and the Gospel neither began nor ended at that point. 
Therefore ovs must be retained before ¢£eAéEaro, Similarly, in a 
preface to the second book the important point 1 to be noticed is that 
which was reached at the end of the first, so that & aX pu is essential to the 
sense, On the other hand, Ropes is surely right in omitting from his 
reconstruction of the original text the Neutral interpolation dveAjppOn, 
and in treating the Western xai éxéXevoe kyptocew Td ebayyédvov 
as merely a paraphrase of evrevAdjevos. If so, the main verb in the sen- 
tence beginning aypu 7s nuépas is mapyyyecAc in vs. 4. That this makes 
a very bad sentence cannot be denied, but in one important point it is 
apparently confirmed by Eusebius, Supplementa Quaestionum ad Marinum 
xi. (Migne, P.G. xxii. col. 1005) evOev . . . éirnpe? A€ywv ws apa Se 
neEpOV TeroapdKkovTa, drTavdpevos avTots Kal cvvavArlopevos, TA Tepl 
THs Bactr<eias Tod Oeod rapedidov pabipara, rapyver TE Opyav eis THY 
“Iepoveadnp, kaKxet knpirrewv lovdaiow rpwtois Tov Adyov pyde mpdTepov 
dvaxwpeiv THs ToAews kTA. This certainly seems to prove that Eusebius 
read érravépevos and ovvavAr(épevos as linked together, But if so he 
must have treated rapéorynoe as the main verb to these participles, and 
mapiyyetAe in vs. 4 as the main verb of évretAdpevos, though of course 
an element of doubt is brought in by the way in which he is paraphrasing. 
His text may have run thus: 

Tov pev mpirov Adyov erounrdpay mept mdvrov, ® Ocddire, dv 
np&ato “Inoots roveiy Te Kat SiSdoker a axpe Fs 7) 7pEpas, évrevAdpevos Tots 

amoorToAots, Sua rvetpatos ayiov ods efeeEaTto, (ois Kal rapéorynoev 

1 This, however, is not quite certain ; the evidence is only Latin, and there 

is a bare possibility that the translator regarded dyp as equivalent to ‘in.’ 
Cf. xxvii. 33. 


éavrov (Ovta peta 7d Tabeiv adrdv év wodAois Texpmpiors, Sv pepav 
TeroepdKovra orravopevos avtois Kal A€eywv TA Tepi THS Bacrreias Tod 
Geod kal ovvavAr(dpevos avrois), rapiyyetAev awd “lepocodAvpwv pur) 
xwpifer Oat, KrX. 

No one who has read much of Eusebius will think that he would 
have found this construction too complicated, as it is simplicity itself 
compared to many passages in his own writings. It is hard to think 
that it can be the finally revised text of any Greek writer, but on 
objective grounds it seems to me to be the earliest form, which explains 
the others. With it the summary goes down to vs. 5, but is obscure. 
It was interpreted and emended in two ways: 

(i.) The makers of the Neutral text, influenced by the Neutral text Early 
of Luke xxiv, 51, or perhaps more probably by the interpretation reg 
(probably correct) of Sueorn as meaning avepépero, inserted dveAjupOn in 
vs. 2. They probably intended to make the description of the first book 
end with vs. 2, thus avoiding the difficulty that the ‘first book’ says 
nothing about the forty days, though it is still just possible to treat the 
summary as extending to vs. 5. 

(ii.) The Western text in the form found in Africa wished to make it 
clear that the summary extended to vs. 5, but covered only the end of 
the ‘first book,’ and therefore inserted a quomodo (=«s%) before con- 
versatus est (= cvvads(duevos). But it also straightened out the obscurity 
of the construction by omitting ots, paraphrasing évrecAdpevos into et 
praecepit praedicare evangelium, and changing axpu into tn die quo. Thus 
this commentator interpreted évresAdwevos e€eA€EaTo as an allusion to 
Luke xxiv. 47 f., a view which would be tolerable only if érounodpunv 
could mean I ended. 

The other variants—and they are many—seem to be conflations of 
these interpretations and texts, in which sometimes text and sometimes 
interpretation takes the lead. 

If the text suggested be right, the meaning is that the ‘ first book *The original 
described all that Jesus did and taught from the beginning up to the sa 
day when he told the disciples not to leave Jerusalem. The narrative 
begins again in vs. 6 with of péev otv . . ., which is the real beginning 
of the second book. This presents two difficulties: (a) It implies 
that the ‘forty days’ is mentioned in the ‘first book.’ This difficulty 
was probably perceived by the makers of the Neutral text, and influenced 
the emendation which they made. There seems to be no solution to 
this problem, for even if the Neutral text be right, the historical, even if 
not the literary, difficulty remains, (b) It does not really cover the end 
of the Gospel as we have it now. The question, however, may well be 
raised whether the first book ended in quite the same way as the present 
text of the Gospel. It is quite possible that when the first book was 
separated from the second, and converted by Marcion into ‘the Gospel,’ 
or by Catholics into ‘the Gospel according to Luke,’ it was felt necessary 
to add a few words, bringing it to a more suitable end. Therefore Luke 
xxiv. 50-53, summarizing Acts i. 6 ff, was added. . It is true that there 
is nothing un-Lucan in the language of Luke xxiv. 50-53, but it is not 

pev : 

Norden and 



hard to write in any given style for a few lines, and the suggestion made 
would bring the first book into closer though not complete accord with 
the author’s statement of its contents, 

2. The Absence of a Se-Clause 

The absence of a Sé-clause describing the contents of the second 
book has often been noted. But this in itself is not really the most 
serious point ; <v solitwrium is not unknown in Greek, and among those 
unaccustomed to literary composition it would obviously be as common 
an idiom in Greek as ‘first’ without a ‘secondly’ is in English. 
Examples in Acts of pév solitartwm can be found in (a) Acts iii. 13, 
for the d5€ in vss, 14 and 15 are not correlatives to the pév in vs. 13, 
the real answer to it coming only in vs. 18 ; (0) iniii. 20 f. kai drooreiAy 
Tov mpokexetpirpevov bpiv Xpurrdv Iycody, ov Sei ovpavdv pev déEar Gar 
axpt Xpovwv droxatactdcews KTX., and (c) in xxvii. 21. With these 
may be compared Rom. iii. 2 and 1 Thess. ii. 18. Thus the mere 
idiom of pév solitarium does not necessarily prove that a dé-clause 
has been omitted, or even that it was ever contemplated by the author, 
The important point is that the general usage of prefaces demands that 
after a pév-clause giving the contents of the previous book there should 
be a déclause giving a summary of what the second book is intended 
to contain. And this is lacking. Nevertheless the fact that this defect 
is not remedied in any of the ancient revisions of the text suggests that 
early Christian writers were not sensitive to it. ; 

3. The Composition of Acts 

These two problems provide the starting-point of the school of com- 
mentators who suggest that an original work by Luke has been greatly 
mutilated and interpolated by a later editor. A very elaborate and 
thorough exposition of this school of thought is to be found in Norden’s 
Agnostos Theos, but it has been developed, and in some points improved, 
by A. Loisy in his Les Actes des Apétres. The difficulty of giving a sym- 
pathetic hearing to their case is that they are obliged to attempt a 
reconstruction of a mutilated text, and in criticizing the details of the 
reconstruction we lose sight of the solid reasons for thinking that the 
text is mutilated. Norden thinks that a later editor cut out the original 
dé-clause because Luke claimed to have been an eye-witness. Loisy 
thinks that the original document emphasized the importance of Paul, 
and spoke of him in the Preface in the déclause which described the 
contents of the second book; but the editor wished to emphasize the 
apostles rather than Paul, cut out the dé-clause altogether, and added 
some rather clumsily constructed phrases about the appearances of Jesus 
to the apostles. 

Of these two the theory of Loisy seems to me preferable. But I 

1 Earlier advocates of this view are Hilgenfeld, and especially A. Gercke 
(Hermes xxix, (1894) pp. 373 ff.). 


cannot accept it, for it seems to me very improbable that a Greek editor 
would have allowed the Preface to go forth in its edited form without a 
5é-clause if as a matter of fact it had originally had one. The absence 
of a déclause is offensive to anyone who knows classical Greek. If 
the Preface ever had a déclause, no one would have merely cut it out. 
Indeed, if the original text was at all the same as it is now, to add 
a 6é-clause is the first thing which would be expected of an editor. 
Therefore I incline to believe that the Preface—apart from textual 
variation—is preserved in its original form, and that it never had a 
dé-clause. I should prefer the theory that the finishing touches 
(certainly including the description of the second book) were never 
given to Acts, rather than accept the view of large changes introduced 
by a later editor. 

It requires so few words to state this opinion, and there is really so 
little evidence, that it is necessary to stress the extreme importance 
of the point. There is no doubt that the absence of a dé-clause is 
very strange. It must be due to the original bad style of the author, 
or to deliberate excision. If it has actually been cut out, or, in other 
words, if we can really be sure that the wey in verse 1 proves that 
there was once a 6é-clause, there is really a strong presumption in 
favour of Loisy’s general theory that in Acts we must distinguish 
the original work of the author from that of an interpolating and 
mutilating editor. The difference between this theory and that adopted 
in Vol. II. pp. 130 ff. is important, but rather more subtle than appears 
at first. 

According to the theory which I adopted in Vol. II. Acts is built up The theory 
out of earlier documents, Greek or Aramaic, fully worked over by the % 8° 
editor of Acts and moulded into his own reconstruction of the history 
of the Church. We can sometimes see that his sources told a rather 
different story, but there is very little question as to what he wished 
to say himself. The story as told is clear and intelligible ; our only 
reason for ever doubting it is that for Luke’s first volume his main 
source—the Gospel of Mark—shows that he edited it so freely that the 
meaning was sometimes changed, and for his second volume the Pauline 
epistles indicate that the real course of events considerably differed 
from his account. The suggestion made is that a study of Luke’s 
editorial methods shows that he was capable of modifying his sources, 
and that the Pauline epistles prove that his version of events is not 
wholly accurate. If, therefore, there are difficulties or inconsistencies 
in Acts in passages where neither Mark nor Paul supplies a ‘ control,’ it 
is not irrational to ask if these may not be due to Luke’s treatment of 
his source. 

Loisy, on the other hand, thinks that Acts was once a much more 
consistent and better written book than it is now. Much of the text as 
it stands is interpolated, and the editor who made these changes was on 
important points at variance with the original author. 

The difficulty of comparing and choosing between these theories is 
that again and again Loisy and I are in real agreement as to the actual 

The mean- 
ing of the 

author of 


Loisy’s evi- 


facts. There is a fundamental difference between us as to the literary 
history of Acts but only, as it were, accidental differences as to the 
nature and history of the early Church. Moreover, if my suspicion 
be well founded that Acts was never quite finished, the difference 
between us as to the literary history resolves itself into the distinction 
between a book which has inequalities because it has been tampered with, 
and one which has inequalities because it has not been adequately 

The argument which seems to me to weigh the balance down against 
Loisy is that apart from the Preface, which is the strongest argument in 
his favour, there seems so clear a line of development running through 
the earlier chapters that it is hard to ascribe any of them to an inter- 
polator. As I read Acts the meaning of the author in chapters i.-v. is 
quite clear. The disciples, after witnessing the Ascension, were gathered 
together in Jerusalem under the leadership of the Twelve, of whom Peter 
was the chief. They completed the number of the Apostolic college by 
electing Matthias, and shortly after received the gift of the Holy Spirit. 
This enabled them to speak with tongues and prophesy, and many converts 
were added to their number. A little later Peter and John used the 
name of Jesus to perform a miracle of healing at the Beautiful gate of 
the Temple, and were summoned before the Sanhedrin on this charge, 
but dismissed with an injunction not to use the Name. They, however, 
refused to obey, and continued their work. Meanwhile the brethren, 
living in harmony, had solved the problem of poverty by the sale and 
distribution of property. Ananias and Sapphira, who tried to retain 
more than they admitted, were miraculously killed by Peter, and the 
community continued a career of miraculous healing, chiefly by Peter, 
whose very shadow was efficacious. Once more the priests intervened, 
and once more also the conclusive evidence in favour of the apostles led 
to their dismissal. 

Almost all of this long narrative, except the miracle of healing at 
the Beautiful gate of the Temple, is regarded by Loisy as unhistorical, 
and due to the interpolator. To me it seems to contain nothing which 
contradicts any passage which can be held to reveal the point of view of 
the author, though in some places it seems not improbable that he has 
changed the meaning of his source. It gives an account of the Christians 
in Jerusalem which, judged by the standard of the time when it was 
written, is intelligible and probable. I partly agree with Loisy that 
some of it may be unhistorical, but I cannot see that it would have 
seemed so to anyone in the first century. It might just as well be the 
work of Luke as of a later editor. 

The details of infelicity or inconsistency to which Loisy calls attention 
seem to fall into three classes: (i.) intrinsically improbable statements ; 
(ii.) inconsistencies, mostly of a minor order, with previous statements ; 
(iii.) infelicities in language. I cannot see that any of these really 
justify Loisy. 

Historical improbability is no evidence for or against either theory. 
Whatever we may ourselves think about the matter, there is nothing 


in these chapters which would have appeared improbable to an early 
Christian. The most serious point is not the miraculous Ascension, 
or the Pentecostal glossolalia, but the importance attached to the 
Twelve and to Peter. If it be really true, as Loisy thinks, that this 
is a late fiction, it would strengthen his case considerably. I am, 
however, inclined to think that, on the contrary, the ‘Twelve’ and 
Peter’s early supremacy in Jerusalem are historically true (see Additional 
Note 6). 

Inconsistencies of a minor order, though worth noting, prove nothing 
for or against either theory. No one ever can write quite consistently, 
or tell a story quite accurately. It is important to notice these dis- 
crepancies, and to decide if possible (which is but rarely) on which side 
the truth lies, but they scarcely ever prove anything as to authorship or 
composition, though if on other grounds a theory of composition be 
accepted, it may be a valuable point in its favour that it explains 
them. In the case of Acts, most of them seem to me to be accidental, 
and, if they mean anything, indicate that the book was not finally 
revised ; the remainder is as explicable on a theory of sources as on 

Infelicities of language point in the same direction. Many of them 
suggest mere lack of revision. They throw no light on the composition 
of the book except to suggest the possibility of translation from Aramaic 
sources, and here again the difficulty of distinguishing between a 
translation from a Semitic language, Semitic Greek, and unrevised 
translation-Greek seems to me insuperable. There is a fair, hardly 
a strong, case for the use of Aramaic sources, but it is not proved, is 
scarcely provable, and can be as easily adapted to a theory of sources as 
to Loisy’s theory. 


By Kirsopr Lax 

The following note is essentially an Auseinandersetzung of differences 
and agreement with Professors Johannes Weiss and F. C. Burkitt, both 
of whom on a point of vital importance for the history of the early Church 
have adopted conclusions which differ from the view generally accepted 
and expressed in Vol. I. pp. 302 ff. 

It has become almost a commonplace of writers on the narrative of The two 
the Gospels that there are two traditions as to the appearances of ‘ditions 
Jesus after the Resurrection—one placing them in Galilee, the other in surrection. 

(i.) The Galilean Tradition.—According to Mark xiv. 27 f., after the The Galilean 

end of the Last Supper Jesus said, ‘“ All ye shall be made to stumble, ito. 



because it is written, I will smite the shepherd and the sheep shall be 
scattered, but when I have been raised up, I will go before you (rpod£w 
tpas) into Galilee.” And according to Mark xvi. 7 the ‘young man’ 
at the tomb, with an apparent allusion to this saying, said to the women, 
** Go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goes before you (rpodyet bpas) 
into Galilee: there ye shall see him, as he told you.” 

The end of the gospel is missing, but the obvious suggestion of these 
verses is that Mark was leading up to an appearance of the risen Jesus in 
Galilee. More or less corrupted forms of such a tradition are to be found 
in Matt. xxviii. 16-20, in John xxi., and in the gospel of Peter.1 They are, 
relatively speaking, unimportant; the theory of a ‘Galilean tradition’ 
really stands or falls with the interpretation of Mark xiv. 28 and xvi. 7. 
On this point Burkitt, Weiss and I are in complete agreement. Thus all 
that can be claimed is that Mark indicates that the risen Jesus was first 
seen in Galilee. 

(ii.) The Jerusalem Tradition.—This is found in Luke xxiv. and John cognate but largely different forms. In each gospel the writer is 
obviously anxious to prove that the risen Lord was risen as a being 
of flesh, and not as a spirit, in apparent contradiction to the Pauline 
doctrine that there is no resurrection of the flesh but only of a 
‘spiritual body’ (1 Cor. xv. 44), and possibly in opposition to early 
docetic teaching. 

The general tendency of most writers for many years has been to accept 
the Galilean tradition, and to give two reasons for doing so. (a) Mark is 
the oldest and best source. (b) Seeing that the early Church wasin Jerusalem, 
not in Galilee, it is easier to suppose that the Jerusalem tradition was the 
modification of the historical tradition of a previous generation by the 
ecclesiastical sentiment of the next. Indeed, the most convincing argument 
for the Galilean tradition has always been summed up in the question, ‘ If 
it be not true, why was it ever invented ?’ 

Two writers, however—F. C. Burkitt and J. Weiss—in different ways 
have pointedly criticized this view, and though perhaps neither has quite 
done justice to the strength of the position which upholds the Galilean 
tradition, they have certainly shaken the confidence which I formerly felt. 
Their views are to be found in J. Weiss’s Urchristentum, 1914, pp. 10 ff., 
and in F. C. Burkitt’s Christian Beginnings, 1924, pp. 76 ff. 

1 For the purposes of this note it is unnecessary to discuss fully the details 
of the problem presented by the relation of these passages to the Marcan 
tradition ; but it is perhaps not out of place to say that Matt. xxviii. 16-20 does 
not seem to me to be based on anything more than the incomplete or mutilated 
Mark which we possess. Maithew probably did not have more than we do, 
and Matt. xxviii. 16 ff. is comparable to Mark xvi. 9-20—the ‘ longer conclusion ’ 
—or to the variant found in LY k—the ‘shorter conclusion ’—rather than to the 
‘lost conclusion.’ John xxi. may be a representative of the Galilean tradition, 
and the Gospel of Peter may quite conceivably—though not certainly—be based 
on the lost conclusion (see further my Historical Evidence for the Resurrection 
of Jesus Christ, pp. 161 ff.). 


(i.) Johannes Weiss.—Johannes Weiss objects to the view that the 
disciples scattered and fled to Galilee immediately after the arrest of 
Jesus on the ground of a consideration of probabilities and the exact 
interpretation of special points. 

The general background of the ordinary presentation of the Galilean 
theory is that the crucifixion was so great a shock to the disciples, who had 
expected the immediate coming of the Kingdom of God, that they moment- 
arily lost all faith and fled. Why should they have done so? asks Weiss. 
Jesus had foretold his death, and had warned his disciples that they would 
be persecuted. Why should they lose all faith, even momentarily, because 
their Master’s words were fulfilled ? That they fled from the Garden at 
Gethsemane was natural, but not that they should go back at once to 
Galilee. Even if some of the details in the prophecy of persecution and 
death may be fairly taken as post eventum amplifications, the general fact 
—so Weiss argues—that these prophecies were made cannot be doubted. 

Moreover, that the disciples actually did not leave Jerusalem is shown 
by Mark itself, for xvi. 7—“‘ Go, tell his disciples and Peter that he goes 
before them into Galilee ”—implies that the disciples were somewhere close 
at hand, where the message could be delivered—not in Galilee, and not in 
hopeless flight. 

Turning to the interpretation of Mark xiv. 28 Weiss argues that it does 
not mean that the disciples will leave Jerusalem, or take to final flight, but 
merely that they will leave Jesus at Gethsemane. This, he says, is the 
meaning which Matthew—the earliest commentary on Mark—attached to 
the phrase, as is shown by the addition ‘ This night’ 1 to the Marcan ‘ you 
shall all be offended.’ Moreover he thinks that rpodye.v ought to mean 
‘lead,’ not ‘ precede,’ and on this assumption builds up a new theory of the 
history of tradition on this point. 

Jesus, he thinks, did actually foretell his rejection by the Jews at 
Jerusalem, and even his death at their hands. But he believed that his 
suffering would be the immediate preliminary to the coming of the King- 
dom, after which he would lead back his followers in triumph to their own 
home—to Galilee. But the Kingdom did not come, so that the saying of 
Jesus remained an unfulfilled prediction. In the Lucan tradition it was 
ignored or changed to mean something else ; in Mark the ‘ Galilean episode ’ 
was invented to account for it. 

The obvious objection to this theory is that it is so destructive of the 
whole critical edifice which Weiss himself did so much to build up on the 
basis of a belief in the trustworthiness of Mark. Few books ever did more 
than his Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (1892) to establish confidence in 
the accuracy of the Marcan presentation of the eschatological teaching of 
Jesus. Before his time the popular view was that the eschatological sections 
of the gospels could be discounted as the erroneous interpretation—if not 
interpolation—of Jewish disciples. The Predigt Jesu seemed to end this 
view. But if on so important a question as the appearance of Jesus to the 
disciples in Galilee the Marcan tradition is to be put aside, and “so gilt 

1 ‘This night’ is not in the oldest authorities for Mark, though it is added 
in the later mss. by harmonization with Matthew. 

J. Weiss. 

Mark xiv. 


ot his 


uns also die ‘ galilaische Uberlieferung’ als ein Phantasieprodukt,” what 
becomes of all our confidence in Mark ? 

Nevertheless Johannes Weiss’s criticism inevitably suggests a question 
which is probably insoluble but cannot be overlooked in any serious 
discussion either of the teaching of Jesus or of the beliefs of the 
early Church. Did Jesus foretell his resurrection or did he speak only 
of the coming of the Son of Man? And if so, did he identify himself 
with that Son of Man ? 

There can be no doubt that the gospel of Mark does in general repre- 
sent Jesus as foretelling his death and resurrection, but few would deny 
the probability that the actual wording of this repeated prophecy (Mark 
viii. 31, ix. 31, x. 33 f.) is due to the influence of a knowledge of the facts 
as they actually happened. On the other hand, in the teaching of Jesus 
as represented by Q,' so far as we can trust critical judgement as to the 
contents of Q, there is probably nothing about the death and resurrection 
of Jesus. There is, however, a great deal about the coming of the Son 
of Man. 

What is the meaning of this curious contrast ? I am inclined to think 
that Mark—as it says itself—represents the gospel about Jesus, which is 
surely the correct translation of evayyéAtov "Incod Xpurrod, and that 
Q, if we could reconstruct it, would prove to be based on reminiscences 
of the teaching of Jesus in Galilee, and probably does not go back to 
the circle of the Twelve. Both Matthew and Luke? are to some extent 

1 T use Q as a generally recognized symbol for the source or sources under- 
lying matter common to Matthew and Luke but not derived from Mark. 

Three cautions seem to me eminently necessary when this source is being 
discussed. (i.) There is no justification for assuming that Q is or is not a single 
source. (ii.) There is even less justification for thinking that it did not contain 
matter found in only one gospel, or that it contained everything found in 
Matthew and Luke, but not in Mark. (iii.) Least of all is there any justification 
for the belief that we can reconstruct it with any degree of verbal accuracy. 
The phrases about which we desire to know most, and need the greatest accuracy, 
are precisely those which were most likely to be emended either by Matthew 
or by Luke or by both. The inaccuracy attaching to any reconstruction of Q 
can be seen by considering how inaccurate would be our treatment of the 
relations between Matthew and Luke if Mark had not been preserved. 

Still, giving full weight to these three cautions, it seems to me that three 
positive propositions may be tentatively put forward. (i.) Q was a Greek 
document, or, if Q was several documents, at least one was in Greek. The close 
similarity between the language of Matthew and Luke cannot otherwise be 
explained, unless we assume that Luke used Matthew, and though this theory 
is sometimes held, it seems to me rather improbable. (ii.) It contained, in com- | 
parison with Mark, a great deal about the teaching of Jesus, and very little 
narrative about his acts. (iii.) It did not contain any account of what happened 
to Jesus outside of Galilee. It did not relate his death or resurrection in 
Jerusalem, and it said nothing about his journey to Phoenicia. This conclusion 
would be profoundly modified if the Lucan account of the Passion could be 
attributed to Q, but this seems to me quite improbable. 

* I cannot see any reason for thinking that Mark was influenced by Q. 


conflations of these traditions, but Q in its absorbed form remains as a 
witness that the teaching of Jesus was ethical and eschatological rather 
than personal or Messianic. He announced the coming of the End and 
the beginning of the World to come, rather than prophesied his death 
and resurrection. 

It is of course true that this teaching of Jesus did not ultimately 
survive except in connexion with the teaching about Jesus, but in the first 
century there must have been, at least in Galilee, a few who remembered it. 
Possibly the fact that they did so is the reason why there was never any 
Christian church in Galilee in the first century, for it must be remembered 
that whatever may be the case to-day, the Christianity which conquered 
the world was the teaching about Jesus, and that according to Acts the 
apostles in their missionary speeches had very little to say as to the teaching 
of Jesus. Nevertheless Q and the singular episode of Apollos, who seems 
to have known the teaching of Jesus as to the ‘ Way of the Lord,’ but not 
to have understood that Jesus was the Messiah (see note on Acts xviii. 
24-28), warn us that in the day of the apostles there may have been a few 
who adhered to the teaching of Jesus and prepared themselves for the 
coming of the New Age in ignorance of, or to the exclusion of, the message 
of the apostles as to the death and resurrection of Jesus. 

Moreover, it is clear, even from Mark, that Jesus made no general and 
public prophecy of his death and resurrection; but he did speak of the 
Coming of the Son of Man—who did not come. The apostles, on the other 
hand, naturally tended to emphasize the resurrection which—as they 
claimed—actually had taken place, and the prophecy of the Parousia 
became confused with the prophecy of the Resurrection, just as generally 
the Christian message that ‘the Lord is risen’ overshadowed, though it 
never wholly eclipsed, Jesus’ announcement that ‘the Kingdom of God is 
at hand.’ 

Similarly, it is extremely unlikely that the Galileans ever thought that 
Jesus himself was the ‘Son of Man,’ ! but undoubtedly the contention that 
he was so formed a central part of Apostolic preaching. 

The preceding paragraphs are intended to suggest problems, not to 
solve them, but they serve to show that there is some difficulty in taking 
the Marcan prophecies of the resurrection as a firm basis for the recon- 
struction of history. 

Finally, the question may be asked whether Johannes Weiss was quite Mark xiv. 
justified in so certainly regarding Mark xiv. 28 as the origin of xvi. 7. - eal 
Could it not have been the other way ? It is unquestionably true that vs. 28 
does not fit very well into the context in which it is found, and many of 
the more radical critics of the gospels have regarded it as an editorial 
addition based entirely on the double belief that Jesus had been raised 
from the dead and had told his disciples that he would be. Professor 
Burkitt writes to me as follows : 

“T am not really satisfied about Mark xiv. 28. It is absent from the 

1 T doubt whether he did so himself (see Vol. I. pp. 377 ff.), but this problem 
is very obscure, and there are several possible views, though to discuss them is 
not germane to the present topic. 

¥. C. Bur- 


very ancient Fayyum Fragment in the Rainer Papyri.1 This may mean 
one of two things: (a) the saying not genuine, but inserted later in view 
of Mark xvi. 7, or belief in the Galilean tradition generally ; or (b) the 
saying genuine, but the writer of the document saw its difficulty and 
dropped it. 

**T sometimes think that (b) is the truth. There are things in Mark’s 
Passion-story that are really reminiscent, and only reminiscent. The Cry 
from the Cross—it has been assimilated to Ps. xxii. 1—must ultimately be 
reminiscent. The young man who left his blanket in the hands of the 
police is another reminiscence, nothing more. Gethsemane itself is only 
‘ edifying ’ to those who already believe: it was not put down in black 
and white to produce adherents to Christianity. It also is reminiscence. 
Did Jesus say ‘ Afterwards, I will go back first to Galilee, away from this 
Jerusalem’? Remember this is just before Gethsemane: He is not quite 
certain that He can stand the ordeal.” 

(ii.) Professor F. C. Burkitt.—Professor Burkitt’s position is more 
subtle, and more acceptable. It is not open to the same criticism as the 
theory of Johannes Weiss. His chief argument—and its strength has 
certainly been overlooked by those of us who support the Galilean tradition 
—is that if the Risen Lord had been seen in Galilee the Church would have 
had its centre in Galilee, not in Jerusalem. It must be conceded that this 
might certainly have been expected ; but is it not at least a partial answer 

1 See Papyrus Erzherzog Rainer, vol. i. pp. 53 ff. The text of the fragment, 
which is generally ascribed to the third century, according to G. Bickell’s 
transcription, is as follows: 




»» + TTAPN 
This he expands as follows: 

. « » [mera 5 7d] payeiv, ws ediyov' md[vres ev rabry] TH vuKrl cxavdadio- 
[Ojcecbe kata] 7d ypapér mardéw rdv [roméva Kal 7a] mpdBara dtacKkopmic- 
[@jcovrac’ elmbvros ro]6 Ilér(pov)* cal ef mdvres, o[vx éyw* mpocGels*] 6 
adextpuav dls xox[Kvéer Kal od mp&rov rpls d]rapr[joy ye). 

His reconstruction of the missing words is in the main doubtless correct in 
general, but some doubt has been expressed about ¢gayeiv and éényov (seo 
especially Wessely in the Patrologia Orientalis, iv. pp. 174 ff.). It is dangerous to 
judge from photographs, but to my own eyes it seems possible that ¢ijyov 
might be read é£9\ Gov, and the reconstruction—@ycovrat evrovros ro—seems too 
long. Moreover, in the photograph I cannot read ¢ayeiv but seem to see 
-ayev. It would be easy to suggest ¢é7yayev. It seems to me doubtful whether 
the letter before zrer- is a v, and if it were possible to read épn 6 rérpos I should 
prefer it ; in any case I cannot feel happy about wer meaning Peter. Would it 
be easy to find examples in Greek mss. of wer being used for rérpov ? 


that the eschatological expectation (which the appearance of the Risen 
Lord surely confirmed) may have led the disciples back to Jerusalem ? 

He also argues that, after all, we do not know that Mark really con- 
tained the ‘Galilean tradition.’ ‘‘ But what,” he says on pp. 86 f. of 
Christian Beginnings, “if Peter saw the Lord on the way, before he had 
got far from the Holy City ? Would it not make him retrace his steps ? 
Would he not take it first of all, in whatever form the vision may have 
been, as a sign that he ought not to leave Jerusalem ? Where the Lord 
was seen, there He was, or somewhere near. This, and not the old haunts, 
was the holy ground, Jerusalem, not Galilee. If the experience of Peter— 
and it was Peter’s experience, no doubt, that was decisive—took place at 
Jerusalem, then we understand why Peter is found at Jerusalem as soon 
as we hear of him again. Otherwise it remains a riddle of which no reason- 
able explanation has ever been given. 

‘For these reasons I think the Lucan view, that Peter and the little 
nucleus of believers never got more than a day’s journey from Jerusalem 
between the Crucifixion of Jesus and the Feast of Pentecost, is psycho- 
logically more probable than that which seems to be indicated in Mark 
and is actually set forth in Matthew, viz. that Peter and his companions 
did return to Galilee and there became convinced that their Lord had risen 
from the dead. 

“*T have said ‘seems to be indicated in Mark,’ for after all it is not quite 
certain what Mark went on to narrate. It must continually be remembered 
that we have not only to deal with and explain the extant words of the 
Gospel, but also the fact of Peter’s return to Jerusalem. I do not wish to 
suggest that Peter did not intend to set out for Galilee ; very likely he did 
start on his way. What I suggest is that he did not get very far. If he 
saw his Lord alive again while he was still in the neighbourhood of the city 
it would not only make him stay, abandoning his projected journey, but 
he would regard it as a kindly and gracious change of purpose. He who 
changed His settled and expressed practice for the sake of the Syro- 
phenician woman might do so for Peter. 

“TI cannot help sometimes wondering whether the well-known story 
of Domine quo vadis? where St. Peter flying from Rome meets Christ on 
the Appian Way and consequently turns back, may not have some historical 
foundation in what occurred on the first Easter Day near Jerusalem.” 

This is fascinatingly stated, and makes me waver in my opinion, though 
I do not see any loophole of escape from the argument that Mark’s words 
imply the expectation of appearances in Galilee, not an appearance near 
Jerusalem before Galilee was reached. If we can put this aside it is 
certainly much easier to accept the view that though the disciples believed 
that they were to go to Galilee, they actually saw Jesus before they went— 
or at least before they arrived—and that he seemed to them to reverse his 
instructions and to tell them to remain in Jerusalem. Still, can we put it 
aside ? 


One point, moreover, seems to me to be exaggerated by Professor Burkitt. The 

On pp. 85 f. of Christian Beginnings he says: “‘ If we are to invent visions 
in Galilee to explain to ourselves the course of events we cannot rest with 

return to 


mere visions, not even with visions accompanied by assurances, whether 
in the form of spoken words or intuitions, that the Lord Jesus was alive, 
and was or would be exalted soon to be with His Father in Heaven. We 
have to go on to invent a definite message to return to Jerusalem, some- 
thing contrary to intuition, contrary to what was natural if Jesus had been 
seen in Galilee. It is not a question of believing an old tradition, but of 
inventing a new one, for the message to return is not included in the 
tradition. The documents that tell us of appearances in Galilee say nothing 
about returning to Jerusalem.” 

This seems scarcely fair. He has himself to ‘invent’ an episode to 
explain why the disciples did not go to Galilee, and the word ‘ invent’ is 
really the wrong one; both he and the defenders of the ‘ Galilean hypo- 
thesis’ are reconstructing a lost document. As a matter of fact, to recon- 
struct it as he does, by assuming that the disciples did not go to Galilee, 
but were intercepted by Jesus, is a more vigorous effort of imagination 
than to suggest that they did go to Galilee, as all the indications in Mark 
suggest, and then returned to Jerusalem, as the course of history proves 
that in this case they must have done. 

Professor Burkitt therefore cannot claim that his theory is any less 
imaginative than the Galilean hypothesis, though he can claim that his view 
makes a less desperate cleavage between the Marcan and the Lucan 
traditions. If, in fact, the disciples did not actually go to Galilee, Luke has 
suppressed a less important episode than on the Galilean hypothesis is 
usually thought to be the case; but that is all. 

Consequently I still hold to the remark made in Vol. I. p. 303, note: 
“‘ This [the fact of the omission of the ‘ Galilean episode ’] is the measure 
of the caution with which statements in the early part of Acts must be 
received, and the justification of a free criticism.” Referring to this 
Professor Burkitt says (Christian Beginnings, p. 92): ‘‘ Yes, indeed; if in 
recounting to Theophilus the things most certainly believed among 
Christians Luke has suppressed the sojourn of Peter and his companions in 
the north during which they became convinced that Christ was risen, and 
has substituted for it a tale of their remaining during this period at Jeru- 
salem, then Acts ceases to deserve to be regarded as an historical document.” 
This seems to me greatly exaggerated. Even if the Galilean theory be 
accepted, why should Acts be not regarded as an historical document ? 
The truth merely is that, in that case, Luke in choosing between two already 
divergent streams of tradition chose one which we think was wrong. He 
was not infallible, and he often omitted incidents which we should regard 
as important. No one can doubt this who studies Acts and the Pauline 
Epistles side by side. Even on Professor Burkitt’s own hypothesis Luke 
omitted the command to go to Galilee, substituted a quite different message 
to the disciples from the angel at the tomb, and said nothing about the 
change of plan ordered by the Lord and resulting in a return to Jerusalem. 

Thus, though Professor Burkitt’s suggestion seems at least sufficiently 
attractive to make me waver in my allegiance to the Galilean hypothesis, 
I am not wholly convinced that he is right. If he be, I should be inclined 
to suggest a modification of his theory to the effect that the Galilean 


tradition may represent a belief widely current in Jerusalem. When the 
disciples disappeared it. may have been generally assumed that they had 
gone back to Galilee, whereas they had really gone only a short distance. 
There is considerable reason to think that Mark is a Jerusalem document. 
The objection to this, just as to Professor Burkitt’s theory as a whole, is 
the difficulty of explaining the Marcan tradition, which seems to leave no 
convenient room for this stay near Jerusalem and not in Galilee. Mark 
xiv. 28 and xvi. 7 are too explicit. 

Supposing, however, that either this or Burkitt’s theory be adopted, 
where did the disciples stop ? If the hints given in Acts may be followed, 
probably they stopped just over the hill of Olivet, where Bethany was. 
The evidence is scanty, but it may be interesting to collect it. 

(i.) The headquarters of Jesus and his disciples, during the week that 
they were in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, was probably either Bethany 
or Bethphage. The suggestion of Mark xi. 1, 11, 12, 19, 27, xiv. 3, 16, 26, 
is quite clear that at no time did they sleep within the walls of the city. 
The general position is summarized correctly—with the possible exception 
of one detail—in Luke xxi. 37, “‘ And during the days he was teaching in 
the Temple, but he went out and camped for the night on the mountain 
called Olive-orchard.” The position of Bethphage and Bethany is doubtful 
(see Additional Note 35), but it probably was on the other side of Olivet. 
The most natural interpretation of the story in Mark, to anyone who has 
seen the exact spot, is that Jesus and his disciples reached the end of the 
long drag up from Jericho and were confronted by the final hills of Olivet 
and Scopus (really a single hill-complex) which rise sharply just before 
Jerusalem is reached and tower above it. The modern road goes round this 
mountain, but the ancient one went over it. At the bottom of this last and 
most fatiguing stage of the journey Jesus’ strength gave out, and he sent 
his disciples into the village higher up on the hill to find an animal for him 
to ride on. 

But if a village on the other side of Olivet was the headquarters of Jesus 
and the disciples, it would be thither that they probably went at the time 
of the arrest of Jesus. The situation is certainly made more intelligible if 
we suppose that Jerusalem was the home of Mark (as we know that it was) 
and of at least some of the women. They would not see the disciples, and 
might suppose that they had gone to Galilee. This would be in line with 
Professor Burkitt’s view, and also with his belief that the gospel contains 
personal reminiscences of Mark himself. 

(ii.) The same place may have continued to be the headquarters of the 
disciples in the period of forty days described in Acts i. 3. The strange 
word cvvad.(dpuevos or cvvavdr(opevos may well mean ‘camping in the 
open.’ (See note on the word in i. 4.) 

Thus, longo circuitu, we reach the phrase in Acts i. 4, ““he commanded 
them to abandon departing from Jerusalem.’’ The note on the phrase ju) 
xwpiter Gar shows that the true meaning of x) with the present infinitive 
is ‘give up’ a course of action. jp) kAérrewv, for instance, does not mean 
‘not to steal’ (which would be p17) xAéPar) but ‘ give up being a thief.’ 

It is obvious that this meaning fits admirably with Professor Burkitt’s 


The soul 
after death. 


view, or with the theory, expressed above, that the disciples originally lived 
in Bethany (or Bethphage). This, of course, may be true even if the Galilean 
theory be retained. The meaning of Acts i. 4 would then be that the 
disciples returned from Galilee to Bethany and lived there, as they and 
Jesus had done, but after forty days moved into Jerusalem, possibly to 
the house of the family of John Mark. 

(iii.) A curious piece of evidence suggests that Bethany may have 
been frequented by the disciples even longer than the forty days. In 
Acts iii. 1 Peter and John are described as coming to the ‘ Beautiful 
Gate’ of the Temple. It is unknown where this gate was, but tradition 
(though relatively worthless, see further in Additional Note 35) takes it to 
be one of the Eastern gates of the Temple, opposite Olivet. Why should 
anyone living in Jerusalem come in by this gate? The only possible 
answer is that he would not. The Mishna says that the Southern gate was 
the usual gate, and common sense suggests the same view. The Eastern 
gate is the natural approach to the Temple only for those who are coming 
from Scopus or Olivet; and if it be true that the ‘ Beautiful Gate’ is the 
Eastern gate, it suggests that the disciples were living in Bethany or 
Bethphage rather than in Jerusalem. 

Note III. Tor AscEnsIon 
By Krrsopp Lake 

The belief in the Ascension is partly, at least, an attempt to define 
more clearly the relation between the living Jesus who died on the Cross 
and the risen Lord who appeared to the Apostles. The oldest tradition 
was that the Lord did not rise until the third day. This belief is 
probably a combination of two ‘experiences’: (i.) of the Apostles who 
saw the risen Jesus; (ii.) of the women who on the third day could not 
find his body. At first there was doubtless no attempt to discuss where 
the ‘life’ of Jesus was during the three days. Paul shows no conscious- 
ness of the question, and some of his incidental remarks might suggest 
that he thought of Jesus as passing straight from death on the Cross 
to life as a heavenly being. 1 Corinthians xv. 1 ff. is, however, clear 
evidence that he thought of the Lord, who is the Spirit, as a transmuta- 
tion into spirit of the body which had been buried. 

Sooner or later, however, the question was bound to arise, where had 
been the ‘life’ of Jesus during the interval of the three days? The 
answer to this question depended on the view taken as to the relation 
between soul and body. After death the body is buried, but where is 
the soul? The Jewish belief, older than any theory of a resurrection, 
said that the soul is in Sheol, and the story of Lazarus and Dives shows 
that in some circles it was thought that a preliminary judgement on men 
sent them immediately after death either to ‘ Abraham’s bosom’ or to 
a place of punishment. A similar view is implied by the words of Jesus 


to the penitent thief on the Cross, “To-day shalt thou be with me in 
Paradise,” and by his last words, “ Father, into thy hands I commend my 
spirit.” Possibly too dvéAnyus was used of the departure of the soul to 
Paradise, and this may explain the curious use of the word in Luke ix, 
51. It is quite possible that this was Luke’s own view, and that he 
regarded the resurrection as the reuniting of soul and body. But in the 
main he is using older documents and does not elucidate this point. 

A further problem, however, arose. The cessation of appearances of The tradi- 
the risen body of Jesus had to be explained, and the story of a bodily tonof 
ascension was an almost inevitable consequence. This was rendered the tions.’ 
easier by the existence of a series of traditions as to the ‘assumption’ or 
‘translation’ of living persons such as Elijah or Enoch, to which the Apoca- 
lyptists added Moses, Baruch, and Ezra, The common element in their 
stories is the taking up to heaven of a living person, and supplied a natural 
explanation for the passing of the risen Jesus from earth to heaven. 

Thus three positions emerge in the earliest Christian literature : 

(a) According to the Pauline Epistles the resurrection of Christians will The Pauline 
be a change from a cdpa yuxixdv to a oGpa mvevparixdy, for flesh EP!Stes 
and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God (1 Cor. xv. 44 and 50). 
Inasmuch as Paul bases this anticipation of the resurrection or meta- 
morphosis of Christians on the model of the resurrection of Jesus, who was 
the first-fruits (1 Cor. xv. 23), he must have held that the risen Lord had 
a ‘spiritual’ body, or, in other words, was a spirit (Rom. viii. 9 ff. and 
2 Cor. iii. 17), for ‘spirits’ were held to have ‘bodies,’* though not of 
flesh and blood, The home, if the word may be used, of the risen Lord 
was heaven, and his appearances were those of a heavenly being.® 

(6) According to Luke and John the risen Lord had the same body ee and 
as was buried, and it still consisted of flesh and blood (Luke xxiv. 39 ; 

John xx. 27 ff.). This view ultimately prevailed in the Church, and 
the Pauline view was forgotten. 

(c) A third view is found in the Gospel of Peter, which seems Gospel of 
sharply to separate the Ascension of the Divine Christ from that of *°*™ 
the human Jesus. According to it the former ‘ascended,’ or was ‘taken 
up’ (dveAjppOn—the word used in Acts) at the moment of his death, 
but the latter was raised in a state of glory on the third day. 

1 It is very remarkable that Luke makes Jesus give this answer to the 
eschatological petition of the malefactor. The Manichaeans used this passage 
to prove that there is no resurrection of the body, but that the soul alone 
lives in Paradise. Some interesting remarks on this subject may be found in 
G. Bertram’s ‘Die Himmelfahrt Jesu vom Kreuz aus und der Glaube an seine 
Auferstehung,’ in the Festgabe fiir Adolf Deissmann, 1927. 

2 Origen, De principiis i. 1 ff., shows that even in the third century the 
statement that God is rvefua was taken to mean that God has a cua, i.e. is 
‘material,’ and Origen has to argue hard and subtly that it means that God 
is vods, i.e. is ‘immaterial.’ Origen’s success is shown by the extent to which 
in later Christian terminology ‘spirit’ and ‘spiritual’ are used as the equivalent 
of the Platonic voids and vonrés. But in the beginning it was not so. 

3 See also K. Lake, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, pp. 220 ff. 

VOL. V Cc 


This is in some ways the clearest example we possess of the view 
discussed above that the soul of Jesus passed to Paradise at his death, 
and was afterwards reunited to his body. It is doubtless very early, but 
it is mixed with a much later and fantastic picture of the resurrection 
of the body. A similar view was held by Cerinthus,! but he identified 
that which was taken up with the Divine Christ as distinct from the 
human, or apparently human body of Jesus, 

On the Pauline view, then, the Resurrection was the passage from 
earth to heaven, or was identical with the Ascension ; but on the Lucan 
and Johannine view which the Church adopted it was a temporary 
restoration of intercourse with the disciples on earth followed by the 
Ascension. This raises the questions: (i.) What was the purpose of this 
renewed intercourse, and why did it cease? (ii.) How long did it last ? 
(iii.) What was the place of the Ascension ? 

The purpose (i.) The first question can be answered shortly. The purpose of the 

Seek: intercourse was threefold. First, it was evidence of the Resurrection 
(Acts i. 2), Secondly, it was for the purpose of further instruction 
(Acts i, 3). Thirdly, both Acts and John indicate that Jesus left the 
disciples in order that they might receive the Holy Spirit (Acts ii. 33 ; 
John xvi. 7, and xx. 22 f)). 

Iteduration: (ii.) The length of the intercourse is variously defined in different 
documents, and the variation indicates how relatively little influence Acts 
had in the formation of tradition in the earliest period, and how much 
it had later. 

Acts. (a) According to Acts the renewed intercourse lasted forty? days. 
There is, however, no other reference in the New Testament to the 
period of forty days, and Paul seems to exclude it by regarding the 
Ascension as synonymous with the Resurrection. Yet in the end it was 

1 Cf. Iren. Adv. haer. i. 21, ed. Harvey, or i, 26, ed. Massuet, and 
Hippolytus, Refut. vii. 33; and for a discussion of Cerinthus see especially the 
excursus in O. Schmidt’s ‘ Gespriiche Jesu’ etc. in the Teate und Untersuchungen, 
xliii., commonly quoted as the Zpistola Apostolorum. The Christology of 
Cerinthus seems to have been essentially a form of Adoptionism, securing the 
apotheosis of the human body, and is closely akin to the doctrine found in Hermas, 

2 The number ‘forty’ seems to be traditional in sacred history: Moses was 
forty days on Mt. Sinai (Exod. xxxiv. 28), Elijah travelled forty days and forty 
nights in the strength of the food given him by the angel (1 Kings xix. 8), and 
Ezra spent forty days in transcribing the Law before his exaltation to heaven 
(4 Ezra xiv. 23, 49), and Baruch waited forty days for his assumption (Apoc. 
Baruch \xxvi. 4). The last two passages are in books that are scarcely in- 
dependent of each other, but they are independent of Acts. Their agreement with 
it in the detail of forty days before an ascension is a striking coincidence, if 
nothing more. Many curious facts are collected by W. H. Roscher in ‘ Tessera- 
kontaden’ in the Berichte d. stich. Ges. d. Wiss. (Leipzig) xi. (1909) pp. 15 ff. 
on the number forty in legend and custom, but they bear only remotely on this 


universally accepted by the tradition of the Church, and is the reason 
for celebrating the feast of the Ascension on a Thursday. 

(6) The Johannine tradition is not perfectly clear, but there are some John. 

indications that the writer thought that Jesus ascended after his 
appearance to Mary Magdalen. When Mary saw the risen Lord she 
went forward towards him (the narrative implies this even if the text 
does not state it), and Jesus said, ‘Touch me not, for I am not yet 
ascended to the Father” (John xx. 17). The form of ‘touch me not’ 
(pa Garou, not pa) diy) shows that it almost means ‘do not detain me.’ 
Similarly in John xvi. 7 Jesus had said, “If I go not away the Paraclete 
will not come, but if I go I will send him to you,” and in fulfilment of 
this on his reappearance to the disciples (John xx. 22 f.) he gave them 
the Spirit. It would thus appear that John’s view was that Mary 
Magdalen saw Jesus just before the Ascension, of which he gives no 
description, and that the gift of the Holy Spirit followed after it. 
He seems to regard the risen Lord as remaining a being of flesh and 
blood even after the Ascension. This soon became the traditional belief, 
but was combined with the Lucan view that the Ascension took place 
forty days after the Resurrection. It is remarkable that John differs 
from Luke in that he does not conceive of the risen Lord as renewing 
his general intercourse with his disciples. The appearances after the 
Resurrection or Ascension are short and transitory, which is quite 
different from the picture given in Acts, It should be noted that the 
desire to harmonize John and Acts is the source of Chrysostom’s 
explanation that 5: 7epov in i. 3 means appearances ‘at intervals,’ 
It is very doubtful whether 8: 7yep@v can mean this, and it is surely 
not the real meaning of Acts (see note ad-loc.). 

(c) In the Gospel of Peter the Ascension of the Christ takes place at Gospel of 
the death of the body on the Cross, and the resurrection of that body ee 
on the third day seems probably (though not necessarily) to imply that 
it also then ascended to heaven. (See H. B. Swete, Gospel of Peter, and 
K. Lake, The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, pp. 155 ff. ') 

(d) The Epistle of Barnabas xv. says, 61d Kai dyopev THY 24€pav Barnabas. 
THY oydénv (i. e. in distinction to the Jewish Sabbath) eis edppoovvyy, 
év 7 Kat 6 *Inoots averTn ék vekpOv kat pavepwleis aveBn eis 
ovpavovs. This probably means that the writer placed the Ascension on 
the same day as the Resurrection, but may mean merely that he placed it 
ona Sunday. Neither view can be reconciled with the tradition of forty 
days. In this connexion, too, may be noted the view of Chrysostom 
(Hom. iii. 1) that the Ascension was on a Saturday; but this is merely 
his inference from the reference in Acts i. 12 to a ‘sabbath day’s journey.’ 

It does not imply that he was ignorant of or rejected the forty days, but 
that he began to count them from the day after the Resurrection (Monday) 
and put the Ascension on the day after their completion. 

(e) A tradition similar to Barnabas is in the Epistola Apostolorwm Ep. Apost. 
(A.D. 150), which seems to place the Ascension on the third day, after 
Jesus had given to the disciples instruction and warning as to their 
future work. There is no suggestion that those instructions extended 


beyond the day of the Resurrection. The Epistola ends: “ After he had 
said this, and had ended his speech with us, he said to us again, See 
on the third day at the third hour there comes he who sent me, that 
I may depart with him. And as he spake there came thunder and 
lightning and earthquake, and Heaven opened, and there appeared a 
cloud of light, which took him up. And there sounded the voices of 
many angels, who rejoiced and sang praises, and said, Gather us, O Priest, 
to the Light of glory. And as he approached the sky we heard his voice, 
Go in peace.” (See C. Schmidt, Epistola Apostolorum, pp. 154 and 300 ff.) 
Valentinians. (f) The Valentinians, according to Irenaeus (Adv. haer. i. 3. 2, ed. 
Mass. ), considered that the risen Jesus remained eighteen months with the 
disciples: tovs Aowrods SexaoxT® aidvas pavepotoOar, Sia Tod pera. 
THY €x vexpov avdoraciv SexaoxTa pynot réyew Siatetpipévar adtdy odv 
tois paOyrais. This theory was also held by the Ophites, of whom 
Irenaeus (Adv. haer. i. 30. 14) says remoratum autem ewm post resur- 
rectionem XVIII. mensibus et sensibilitate] in eum descendente didicisse quod 
liquidum est ; et paucos ex discipulis suis, quos sciebat capaces tantorwm 
mystertorum, docutt haec et sic receptus est in caelum, etc. For the further 
explanation of this strange passage see Harvey’s note in his S. Irenaei . . . 
adversus Haereses, tom. i. pp. 239 f. The same tradition is also found in 
the Ethiopic Ascension of Isaiah (Asc. Is. ed. Dillmann, ix. 16): ‘ And 
when he has spoiled the angel of death he will rise on the third day, and 
will remain in that world five hundred and forty-five days (= eighteen 
months).” Cf. too Ephrem’s Commentary in which he animadverted 
against this view (see Vol. III. p. 381). Harnack thinks this period of 
eighteen months may represent a correct tradition as to the date of Paul’s 
conversion, and the belief that the vision on the road to Damascus was 
really the last appearance of the risen Lord (see SBA., 1912, pp. 677 f.). 
Piatis (g) The Pistis Sophia and the Book of Jeu say that Jesus remained 

i twelve years with the disciples. The Pistis Sophia is the secret teaching 
which he gave in the twelfth year. 
The tenden- All of these traditions show the growing tendency to look on the 

cies produ- . é ‘ : A “ 
iia’ these instruction given by Jesus on earth as superior in authority to all other, 

traditions. and two lines of development can be noted. One of these lengthened the 
period of converse between Jesus and his disciples, in order to find room 
for much secret doctrine. In the end it survived in the Catholic Church 
only in the very early form represented by Acts i. 3. But the principle 
always remained that the words of Christ have an authority superior to 
that of the voice of God in living persons or institutions ; it was the basis 
of an ‘ Apostolic’ canon? of the New Testament, and became dominant 
in Protestantism. The other tendency was to emphasize the abiding 

1 The Church never said that the gift of prophecy had wholly ceased, but it 
was hard to convince it that individuals, such as Montanus, were inspired by 
the Holy Spirit ; and by putting ‘ Apostolic’ authority above that of prophets 
it rendered it possible to close the canon of the New Testament. It should, 
however, be remembered that this was the result, not the purpose, of the action 
of the Church. 


presence of the Divine Christ in the Church and in men, as the ‘sons of 
God.’ This can be seen clearly in the Pauline literature, in which, 
however, it is sometimes obscured by the habit of the writer to speak 
indifferently of ‘ Christ,’ the ‘Spirit of Christ,’ the ‘Spirit of God,’ and 
‘the Spirit’ (cf. Rom. viii. 9 ff.). This principle was to some extent 
overshadowed by the other in official circles, but survived in all forms 
of mystical personal Christianity, and in the Catholic doctrine of the 
Church as an inspired institution, even though this was largely neutralized 
by the theory of ‘ apostolic’ authority and of immutable tradition. 

The difficulty of reconciling the two points of view—which represent 
the eternal conflict between institutional history and personal experience— 
was largely concealed by the rapid growth of a distinction between Christ, 
more and more used as the name of the heavenly Jesus, and the Spirit, 
regarded as the source of existing religious life. 

Acts stands here, as so often, at the parting of the ways. The 
‘Lord’ is the ever-present guide of Christians, and his commands are 
paramount ; but in some cases this guide of life is spoken of as the Spirit 
and already distinguished from the Lord, in contrast to Paul’s ‘the Lord 
is the Spirit.’ For this reason the writer makes use of the Ascension as 
marking a difference of relationship, and limits the intercourse between 
the risen Jesus and his followers to forty days. 

(iii.) The place of the Ascension.—Neither in the Gospel nor in Acts The place 
is this indicated so definitely as to be beyond question. es: 

The Gospel of Luke seems to place the Ascension at Bethany, for it Luke. 
says eEjnyaye Se avrovs ws pds BynOaviav ... kal... dueorn ax’ avTov 
(Luke xxiv. 50), and, even if (as is probable) the actual description of 
the Ascension ought to be omitted from this text, the event referred 
to as the separation of Jesus from the disciples (Siérry . . .) certainly 
is intended to be the final episode of his ministry, and is the same as the 
Ascension of Acts i. 6-11. It is, indeed, sometimes thought that 
éws mpds BnOaviav may mean ‘until on the way to Bethany,’ but this 
seems very harsh, for though mpds can mean ‘towards’ as well as ‘to,’ 
éws mpods can hardly do so. 

In Acts the place of the Ascension is not named in i. 6-11, but Acts. 
in vs. 12 it is said that the disciples returned to Jerusalem, after the 
Ascension, from Olivet. The obvious implication is that the Ascension 
was on Olivet, i.e. ‘the olive-yard,’ oltvetwm, called ‘Mount of Olives’ 
in Matthew and Mark.! It is the long hill immediately to the east of 
Jerusalem, now called by the Moslems Jebel et Tur (the hill of the 
Mount), or by Christians Jebel ez-Zeitun (the hill of Olives). Tradi- 
tion has accepted the view that the top of this hill was the site of the 
Ascension, and a church on the spot commemorates it. But tradition 
has also identified Bethany with El Azariyeh, ‘the village of Lazarus,’ 

1 The two places may have seemed to Luke to be almost the same. Following 
Mark xi. 1 he mentions them together in Luke xix. 29, and while the other 
_gospels say that Jesus retired at nightfall from Jerusalem to Bethany (Mark xi. 
11 f., ef. xiv. 3), Luke xxi. 37 says that Jesus spent his nights on Olivet. 

The Messi- 
anic import- 

ance of 




almost at the bottom of the south-eastern slope of Olivet on the modern 
road to Jericho, and commentators have therefore endeavoured to explain 
drd tod "EAatavos as ‘returned by way of Olivet,’ which is at least 
very unlikely Greek (see also Addit. Note 35). 

It is not impossible that the emphasis on the Mount of Olives is 
due to its importance in Messianic expectation. The origin of this was 
Zech. xiv. 3 ff.: “Then shall the Lord go forth and fight against those 
nations, as when he fought in the day of battle. And his feet shall 
stand in that day upon the Mount of Olives, which is before Jerusalem 
on the east, and the Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst thereof 
towards the east and towards the west, and there shall be a very great 
valley.... And the Lord my God shall come, and all the holy ones with 
thee.” This appears to have been interpreted by the later Rabbis to 
mean that the Resurrection would take place through the cleft in the 
Mount of Olives, and that the righteous dead who had died outside 
of Palestine would be moved along underground, and so be able to come 
upin the proper place. It was also held that Messiah would frequent 
the mountain. Rabbi Janna also explained in a similar manner Ezekiel 
xi, 23: “And the glory of the Lord went up from the midst of the 
city, and stood upon the mountain which is on the east side of the city.” 
He said that the Shekinah stood three and a half years on Olivet, and 
preached saying, “Seek ye the Lord while he may be found ; call upon him 
while he is near,” and when all was in vain returned to its own place. 

Nort IV. Tue Dratu or Jupas 
By Kirsoppr Laks 

There are three extant traditions of the death of Judas: 

(1) Matt. xxvii. 3-10. Tore ov *Tovdas 6 mapadovs avTov ore Kar- 
exptOn, perapedn Gets corpepev Td, TpudKovra dpytpwa Tots dpxvepetion Kat 
mperBurépors A€ywv* yyaptov tapadods aiua dOpov. ot S€ efrav* Ti 
mpods npas; ob dvy. Kal pi~as Ta dpytpia eis Tov vady avexapycer, 
kat dreAOdv arnyEato. ot S& dpyxuepeis AaPdvres Ta dpytpia etrav' 
ovk eLertiv Badeiv aita eis Tov KopBavav, érel Tin aipards eoriv 
ocuvpBovrAvov S AaBdvres Hydpacav €€ aitav Tov aypdv TOD Kepapéws 
cis Tapiy Tots févous. 51d €xAHOn 0 aypds exeivos dypds alparos ews 
THs o7pepov. TOTE ern pon 7d pn bev bia ‘Tepepiov Tot mpodijrov 
Aéyovros" kat éAaBov ° 70, TpidKkovra dpytpua, THY repay Tob TET YUM HEVOU 
ov erysijravro amd vidv “Iopard, kat éOwkav adra eis Tov aypdv ToD 
Kepapews, Kaba, cvvérager prot Kvpuos. 

(2) Acts i, 18- 19. Otros pev obv exTHT ATO Xwplov éx purbod Tis 
ddixias, Kab ™pnvys yevopevos éAdunoev pcos” Kat eLex¥n TavTo. 
TO. omhdyxva avTov* Kat yroordy eyevero. Tao Tots KaTOLKovoLW 
TepovraAnp, doe An Piva 7} Xepiov éxeivo TH SiaAexTw adTor 
’"AyxeASapax, TOUT’ EoTiv Xwpiov aiparos. 


(3) A third tradition was represented by Papias in the fourth book Papias. 
of his Aoyiwy xvpiaxav éEnyjoes. This book is no longer extant, but 
its evidence on this point was quoted by Apollinarius of Laodicea,? and 
has been preserved in various catenae. The best form is in Cramer’s catena 
(Oxford, 1844), but there are two versions, one in the catena to Matthew 
and the other in the catena on Acts. Their texts? can readily be 
shown to be ultimately identical by printing the two forms side by side. 

CraMER: Catena in Matt. xxvii. CraMER: Catena in Acta i. 

“Atrohwapiou * *loréov ore O *Atro[Awvapiou]. Ovx évarébave 
*Tovdas ovk evarebave TH dyxXovy, tT ayxovy “Iovdas, GAN ereBiw 
GAN ereBioxe Karevex Geis mpd TOU 
dromviyjvat, Kat tovto dnAovouw 
c lad > / , ¢ 
ai tov “ArooroAwv II pagers, ore 
Tpynvyns yevopevos, eAdxnoe Kal Td. 
e€ns* Ttovto dé cadéorepov toro- 
pet Ilarias, 6 “Iwdvvov tod azo- 2 : ‘ : 
oréAov pabntis, Néywv' Méya capertepov ioroped Ilamrias 6 

> / 4 7 o 
doeBeias brodeypa ev Toit TH Iwdvvov pabnrtijs, A€ywv ots, 
Koop mepierdtncev 6 “lovdas: ev ty 8’ rhs eEnyjoews TOV Kupi- 

\ \ 3528 a \ ~ 

mpno els yap ért tooovrov tIv axdv Adywv: peyad Se doeBelas 
odpka, dore pr StvarGar Sve Oeiv, 
dpdéns padins Stepxopevns, brd 
THS Gpdéns wrawevta 7a, eyKata 
eyKevwOjvat. ees . y aitae 

tod abtod. IlpnaGeis éri rocod- érd0ev dpaga Sdiepxerar padiws 

> a 4 na 

Tov Thy odpka Gore ovde Srdbev Exeivov SivarBar SueAOeiv: aGAAG 
e SaSi 8 , r Eyer \ ore , a a 
dpatav padiws duepxerat, exetvov unde avrdv pdvov Tdv THs Kehadijs 
, a > ‘ \ a 
Stvvacbar SueAGciv, adrAAA pumbev Bykov adrod: 7a pev yap BrEpapa. 

2 , 7 nw nw »” 
adrdv povov Tov THs Kepadis yKov" 
Ta pev yap BrEpapa adrod tov ia fos rege \ ; 
4 - ‘ See rae Tov €£o.djoat, ws avTdy pev Kabo- 
6fOarpov pact torovtov e£o.djoat, Nee hee neue ane 
ws avrov pev KaOdXrov 75 das pur) veri Ge al B es rabig of- 
BrErew, Tods 6POadports S€ adrod Gadpords dé avtod pde trd iarpod 

fal lal > an a 

pyde td iarpexns Sidrtpas 6fO7- Sudrrrpas 6fOfvar SivacOat: rocod- 

1 Zahn has argued (7ASK., 1866, pp. 683 ff.) that the Apollinarius quoted in 
the catenae is sometimes, and especially in this place, Claudius Apollinarius of 
Hierapolis who lived in the second half of the second century. It is not 
impossible that some of the passages attributed to Apollinarius may belong to 
this writer, and a critical investigation of catenae might be rewarded by results, 
but in this instance the probability is greatly in favour of Apollinarius of 
Laodicea, because we know that Claudius Apollinarius accepted the Matthaean 
version of the death of Judas without reserve. Cf. Eusebius, H.2#. v. 16. 18, 
where Apollinarius says of Montanus and Maximilla: rovrous yap brd rvedparos 
Brawidpovos éxarépous broxwihocavros Néyos dvaprijca: Eavro’s, .. . Kal olrw dé 
TerevTioa Kal Tov Blov karacrpéWat Lovda mpodédrov dikyp. 

2 It is extremely likely that research in Mss. of the catenae would enable 
these texts to be greatly improved. 

\ XN A > lal 
kadaipeBeis mpd Tod dromveyhvac’ 
Kat tovto SnAotow ai trav ’Azo- 

/ / tid ‘ , 

ordAwv ITIpdages, dre pynvis yevo- 
2\ 7 cA yY J , 

pevos ehaxnoe péros, Kat eFextOn 

Ta orAdéyxva avrov. Tovto Se 

trddeypa év totTw TO Kdcpy 

és «3 A ‘ 
mepreratnoev 6 “lovdas: mpnoOels 
ext TorovTov THY TdpKa, GaTE pyde 

tov 6p0arpov adbrod dart tocod- 

The original 
form of the 
story in 


CRAMER: Catena in Matt. xxvii. 

va Sivac Bax, torovTov aos 
etxov amd THs éEwbev emipavetas * 
To 6€ aidofov avrod dons pev 
aisxtvys andértepov Kal peifov 
paiver Bar, _ Peper Oat be 8 advrod 
Tovs e€ daravros Tob oOparos 
ouppeovras ixdpas, Kal oKdAnxas, 
eis bBpw 0 away pdvov TOV dvay- 
Kalwv. pera dé roAAas Bacdvous 
Kal Tyzwpias év Sip pact Xwpiy 
TeAevTiTavTos, dir THS oops 
épnpov Te kat doukov TovTo 7} 
Xwpiov Pex pt Tis vov yevér Oat, dAN’ 
ovde pexpt onpepov SivacOai tive 
éxeivov Tov TOmov TapeADeiv, edv pn 



CRAMER: Catena in Acta i. 

tov Babos etxov amd Tis efwbev 
erupavetas. 7d 5€ aidotov adtrov 
Taos pev a xXnporivns anderTEpov 
Kat pet(ov haiverOar* féperOar Se 
80 avtod ék mavtds Tod cwpaTos 
cuppéovtas iy@pas te Kal oKwAn- 
kas eis UBpw 8 adbtdv jdvov 
TOV dvayKkaiwv* peta mwodXas dé 
Bacdvovs Kat Tipwpias, év diy 
pact Xopiy TeAeuTaTaVTE * kat 
TovTo dard THS 0d00 [? opis] € epypov 
kal doiknrov Td xwpiov PEXpL Tis 
vov yever Oar GAN ove pexpt Tijs 
onpepov SivacGai tia éxeivov Tov 
Torov TapeAOeiv, av pn Tas pivas 

tais xepoiv emippaéy* tocavry 
dua Tis capkds avTov Kal eri yjs 
Kpiow exwpnoer. 

X ta o \ > , 
Tas pivas Tals xepotv erippagy. 

It will be seen, however, that these versions differ in one very 
important point. In the catena on Acts the whole story is attributed to 
Papias ; but in the catena on Matthew the quotation from Apollinarius 
which contains the extract from Papias ends with the statement that 
Judas was crushed by a wagon, and a new extract from Apollinarius 4 
then begins and gives a more elaborate and gruesome account of the 
swelling up and death of Judas. These two versions do not agree: in 
one the wagon is the cause of death, in the other it is part of the 
comparison and only mentioned to show the extent to which Judas was 
swollen. The question is whether the ‘crushing by a wagon’ or the 
longer version is really that of Papias. 

The matter cannot be settled with certainty, but J. Rendel Harris 
has tried to bring the balance of probability to the side of the 
attribution of the longer version by pointing out in the American 
Journal of Theology, July 1900, p. 501, that Bar Salibi in his com- 
mentary on Acts quotes the passage about the oxwAnxas, and definitely 
ascribes it to Papias. It is extremely improbable that Bar Salibi used 
the catena of Andreas, so that this is independent evidence that the 
passage was taken from Papias by Apollinarius. 

If so, Papias described Judas as living after the betrayal, and dying 
from a disease so terrible that his estate remained unoccupied. Among 
the symptoms mentioned was extreme swelling, so that a place where a 
wagon could pass was too narrow for him. This comparison gave rise to 
a secondary form of the story which represented Judas as crushed by a 

1 E. Nestle, Zxpos. Times, xxiii., 1912, p. 331, refers to the Acta Pilati, 
Recension B (Tischendorf, Lvangelia Apocrypha, 2nd ed. p. 290), where the 
text reads éAdxiwev, érploOn (i.e. érpjoby). But this is very late. For the 
verb érpjon cf. Num. v. 21, 22, 27. 


wagon. This would justify the reconstruction of the fragment of Papias 
by Hilgenfeld, ZW Th. 1875, pp. 262 f., and printed by Preuschen in his 
Antilegomena, ed. ii. pp. 97 f. 

On the other hand, general probability would perhaps suggest that 
the shorter version is likely to be original. If so, the gruesome details 
and the changed form of the longer version is due to a desire to pile 
up horrors and to make the death of Judas similar to that of other 
notoriously evil men, such as Herod the Great or Nadan in the story 
of Ahikar. To me this seems somewhat the more probable hypothesis. 
Whichever view be taken, Papias clearly represents a tradition different 
both from Matthew and from Acts. 

It remains to consider ancient and modern attempts at harmoniza- Harmoniza- 
tion so far as they have any importance, and finally to discuss the possible “°™ 
origin of the three stories. 

It was inevitable that ecclesiastical writers should endeavour to 
reconcile the three traditions. The beginning of this can be seen already Apolli- 
in Apollinarius, but he can scarcely be said to be harmonizing all the ™"* 
details. He is only anxious to maintain that dmyjyéaro in Matthew 
does not necessarily imply death, and quotes Acts and Papias to prove 
his point. It is probable (though he does not say so) that he regarded 
Tpynvis yevouevos and mpynoGeis as giving respectively the reason why 
Judas did not die—a man who tries to hang himself but rpynvjs yiverat 
probably survives—and why permanent evil followed from the strangling, 
e£exv0n xrA. being a shorter description of the disease described by 
Papias. It is extremely improbable that this is what Matthew, Luke, 
or Papias meant, but considering the conviction of ancient writers that 
all scriptures agree, Apollinarius must have held some such view. 

More extensive attempts at explanation and harmonization are to be 
found collected by J. Rendel Harris in AJTh., July 1900, pp. 490 ff. 

The most interesting are (1) Theophylact. in Matt, 27: Theophy- 

Tives 5¢ A€yovow dre 6 “lovdas Pirdpyvpos dv treddpBavev dru 

> /, tA \ > 7 ‘ / % ¢€ \ > 
avtTés Te KEepdnoe. TA apytpia mpodods Xpirrdv, kat 6 Xpwrrds ovK 
> , > ~ 4 ‘\ > 4 c , 4 
droxtavOnoerat dAAA Siadpdyyn Tods “lovdaiovs, ds worAAdKis Siepvye. 
tore S¢ iSav adrdv Karaxpilevra, kat 45n KatadixacOevta amoOavety, 
, c lal 4 > / x7 «@ 3 / & 

petapeAnOn, ds ToD mpdypatos adroBdvros wap’ Srep treAdpBave. 810 
kal amny€ato iva mpoddByn tov “Inrotv év tH Gdn Kal ixerevoras 
cwtnpias tevénta. tAnY yivwoke Ste EOnke pev Tov TpadxnAov adrod 
eis THY ayxdovnv, rd SevSpov tivds Kpeudoas Eavtdv* Tov Se Sevdpov 
KALOevtos, erée(noe, TOD Geod OédovTos adTdv 7 Eis peTavoLay ovvTHpHaaL 
7} eis Tapaderypaticpov Kal aicxtvynv. pact yap dr. voow bdepixy Gore 
m” Lid < "g vA > ‘ -, a > ‘ 
évOa dpaga padiws Siépxeras, adrdv py Stivacbar diedAOeiv, cira rpyvijs 

| > / > A “A ser e Le ‘ > a , 
merov ehaxyoev, avtt Tov Sieppdyn, ws Aovkas pyotv év tais Ipd€ercv. 

(2) A scholion, attributed to Eusebius, quoted by Matthaei, Novwm Eusebius. 
Testamentum, vol. v. p. 304 (Riga edition, 1782) : 

éXdxnoe] EiceBiov. arjdOev *lovdas cat daiprivev éavrov év TO 
TXoWwiy, peta 7d piat aitoy Ta apytpia. THs € cxolvov Kat’ oikovo- 


piav Oeod payeions, eis ynv erevev, ovK di éBave dé wap’ vv, aAXa. 
xvdevrwv avrod TOV omhdyxvov, ereOn ev KpaBBdry, S00 pépas 
mplOvagros kat darvevorusy * [forte 4 Garvevotos Ov] ex de Tob KpaBBarov 
exrenmToxids, payjivas pérov kal tore droOaveiv, TeAeiws TOV oTAdyXVOV 
adtod eEoxerevGevTwv. 

Armenian (3) A quotation in the Armenian catena, quoted by F. C. Conybeare 
Rect in the American Journal. of Philology, xvii. p. 150: 

“(Of Chrysostom*?] Accordingly he (i.e. Peter) describes also the 
sentence which he suffered. ‘ Being swollen up,’ he says, ‘he burst in 
the middle and all his bowels were poured out.” He does well to relate, 
not the offence, but the punishment, in order to the comforting of those 
who were afraid of the Jews. But that he fell on the earth and burst 
and his bowels gushed out, is like this. For he shut the doors against 
himself before he strangled himself, and he remained there on the gibbet 
the Friday and the Saturday. When he had swollen up and grown 
heavy, the cord was cut by which he hung: he fell, burst asunder, and 
was poured out. But the stench of the putrifying heap and of his guts 
brought together the children of Jerusalem to come and _ view his 
infamous end, and the awful sign which was for him the precursor of 

Isho‘dad. (4) The commentary of Isho‘dad on the Acts,’ published (for this 
passage) by J. Rendel Harris, AJTh., July 1900, p. 496: 

“¢He fell upon his face on the earth, and he burst asunder,’ etc. 
They say that when Judas hanged himself either the halter was released 
and he escaped, or else someone saw him hanging and saved him ; and 
this happened by the providence of God, first that the disciples might 
not be accused of having hanged him, and then because it was fitting 
that he who had betrayed him openly should die openly. So he lived 
on and saw the resurrection of his Lord and heard that he had come to 
his disciples many times, and that he had ascended to heaven; and 
then he came when many were gathered together, and fell on the ground 
in the midst of the city, and burst asunder, etc.” 

oe More important for the study of Acts is the influence of this har- 
Te monizing process on the text of the Acts. This is found in the African 
Latin of Augustine contra Felicem, which reads— 

hic igitur possedit agrum de mercede iniustitiae suae, et collwm sibi 
alligavit et deiectus in faciem diruptus est medius, et effusa sunt omnia 
viscera evus, 

Here it is clear that collum sibi alligavit, whatever Greek it may represent, 
is an attempt to harmonize Acts with Matthew. It is very remarkable 
Jerome. that Jerome seems to have been acquainted with this reading, though 

1 This is Matthaei’s accentuation. Possibly the ms. reads davevorl dv. 
2 More probably Ephrem Syrus, see Vol. III. p. 391. 
3 Published in full by Mrs, Gibson in Horae Semiticae, x. 4, 1918. 


in the shorter form of suspensus instead of collum sibi alligavit, but he 
apparently took it as a substitute—he can scarcely have thought that 
it was a translation—for rpnvys yevopevos. He therefore reads in the 
Vulgate suspensus crepuit medius et diffusa sunt omnia viscera evus, Con- 
sidering the relative dates of the authorities, this is a clear case of the 
well-known double process in textual history: first, a gloss is added to 
explain a difficult text; secondly, the gloss takes the place of the 
difficulty, which is left out altogether. 

An instance of exactly the same process, but dealing with the Papias The ar- 

story of ‘swelling’ instead of with the Matthaean story of ‘hanging,’ ™°™a” text 
is found in the history of the Armenian text. The Armenian Vulgate 
reads “ Being swollen up he burst in the middle and all his bowels were 
poured out,” representing apparently rpyo Geis instead of rpnvijs yevopuevos. 
This is clearly a harmonization of Acts with Papias, just as Jerome’s Vulgate 
is a harmonization of Acts with Matthew. But just as Augustine shows 
an earlier text behind Jerome, which explained but did not omit mpnvijs 
yevopuevos, so the Armenian catena suggests a similar text behind the 
Armenian Vulgate which read zpyoOeis kat rpnvis yevdpevos, for the 
commentator (Ephrem ?) who is quoted in the catena is apparently aware 
not only of Matthew but also of a text of Acts which included both 
mpnvys and mpyoOeis, The probability that this reading in the 
Armenian Vulgate goes back to an Old Syriac text of Acts is increased 
by the fact that it is also found in the Georgian version. 

Modern writers have mostly abandoned the attempt to reconcile Dr. Chase. 
Matthew and Acts, but an important contribution by F. H. Chase in 
JTS, Jan. 1912, pp. 278 ff, endeavoured to show that Papias was really 
dependent on the same tradition as Acts, and that rpnvijs yevdpuevos is an 
obscure medical term meaning the same as mpnoGeis. This theory was 
accepted by A. von Harnack in 7hLZ., April 13, 1912, and by J. Rendel 
Harris, AJTh,, Jan. 1914, pp. 127 ff. 

Unfortunately the only evidence from Greek sources in favour of this 
theory is derived from Zonaras, the compiler of a Byzantine dictionary, 
and Euthymius Zigabenus. Zonaras says mpynvys yevopevos* ayouv 
Tempnopevos, e-wykopevos, and Euthymius Zigabenus (Comment. in Matt.) 
says era, ev iSid(ovte Tdrw Sue(yoe Karpov dAiyor, Kal rpnvijs yevopevos, 
cit’ ov werpynopévos, eEwykopevos, ehaxure Kal Sueppdyn peoos. There 
is therefore no doubt that Euthymius and Zonaras thought that Judas 
swelled so that he died, but, as Harnack himself pointed out, the 
connexion with Papias and the desire to harmonize is very obvious, 

The truth probably is that rpyvijs is a word which became obsolete. mpyris. 

It is not given in Sophocles’ Greek Lex. of the Byz. Period (which means 
that Sophocles had nothing to add to the classical dictionaries), and it is 
instructive that in Wisdom iv. 19 the corrector of Codex Vaticanus 
added a note in the margin él mpdécwrov, showing that although he 
knew what it meant he thought that it might trouble the readers of 
the ms. which he was preparing. 

Apart from these late and doubtful witnesses there is no Greek 
evidence which bears examination ; but some importance attaches to the 



fact that in Wisdom iv. 19 the Latin version translates pjfer adrovs 
apwvouvs mpnveis by disrumpet illos inflatos sine voce, and that the 
Armenian Version appears to have a similar translation. 

ae This evidence is certainly susceptible of the interpretation that xpyvjs 

Armenian. was taken to mean ‘swollen’ by the Latin and Armenian translators. 
But four considerations show that this is inadequate to prove that rpyvijs 
really has this meaning. (i.) Neither translator is known to us, and 
certainly the makers of the Old Latin were capable of quite extraordinary 
blunders: in the absence of further evidence the translation given in the 
Old Latin is quite inadequate proof of the meaning of a Greek word. 
(ii.) The Papias tradition, as has been seen in the case of the Armenian 
catena and Vulgate, is a vera causa for a glossing translation which 
in Acts interpreted zpynvjs as ‘swollen,’ and this may have affected the 
translation of Wisdom. (iii.) In point of fact ‘ prostrate and silent’ in 
Wisdom gives a far better meaning than ‘blown up and silent’—which 
is, indeed, nonsense. So that even if it be conceded that the translator 
thought that zpyveis meant inflatos, the context goes to show that he was 
wrong, and there is no need to spoil the meaning of Wisdom in order 
to find in Acts an dra€ Aeydpevov, supposed to be of medical origin, and 
by so doing to harmonize the statement of Papias with a book which he 
quite possibly had never seen. 

Apart from this there is no argument in favour of Dr. Chase’s theory ; 
the other passages which he adduces are all merely repetitions of the 
Papias tradition, or can be preferably interpreted by giving wpyvjs its 
ordinary sense. It is true that there are two verbs in Greek, ripmpnu, 
to burn, and p70, to swell (see Acts xxviii. 6), but mpyvjs in 
the sense of ‘prone’ is not connected with either of them, and there 
is no instance of its use in Greek writers, medical or otherwise, in 
this sense. It is also true that the verb y/yvopuar is used by medical 
writers, but this is scarcely an unusual or strange idiom, and cannot 
be said to affect the meaning of mpyvjs. In fact it seems as though 
Dr. Chase had forgotten that it is impossible to prove both that arpnvijs 
is a medical term and also that it is a dmra€ Xeyopevov (loc. cit. 
p. 279). 

Acta The evidence of the Acts of Thomas is not cogent. It says that 

Thome. 4 dragon pvonbels éXdunoe Kab dwéOave kat eextOn 6 ids adrod Kat 
» xoAyn. It may be admitted that éAdxnoe is probably a reminiscence 
of Acts, but it no more proves that mpyvjs meant PvonGeis than 
it does that ra orAdyxyva meant 6 ids adtod (see Acta Thomae, 

It is certainly not a legitimate inference from the comment of 
Apollinarius that he (or Papias) took zpyv7js to mean a disease. He is 
busy showing that Judas did not die when he hung himself, and quotes 
Acts and Papias to prove his contention: if he implies anything it is that 
Judas was made prone by disease. It is entirely too rash a conjecture 
that he thought that mpyv7js meant swollen by inflammation because 
he quotes Papias. It should be noted that it is inaccurate to say, as 
Harnack does, that Apollinarius quotes Papias to explain Acts: he quotes 



both Acts and Papias to prove his point that Judas continued to live, and 
it is to this—not to tpynvijs yevduevos—that Totro refers. 

The evidence of Athanasius in his account of the death of Arius Athanasius, 
points against rather than in favour of Dr. Chase’s theory. Athanasius 
says 6 6¢ "Apes . . . eionAGev eis Oaxos ds Sia ypelav THs yaoTpos, 
kai e€aipvns Kata Td yeypappeévov* mpnvijs yevopevos eAdKyTE péros 
kat merov evOis aéyvéev. The construction is a little complicated, 
because éAdknoe is part both of the sentence and of the quotation ; 
but it is surely clear that weowv in the narrative answers to mpnv7s 
yevopevos in the quotation. In any case it is obscure why Dr. Chase 
thought that the nature of the disease “makes it reasonable to con- 
clude” that Athanasius understood mpnvijs yevduevos as equivalent 
to rpnoOeis, which he does not mention, rather than to meodv, which 
he does (see Athanasius, Ypist. ad Serapionem de morte Arit, Migne, 
P.G. xxv. 688). 

It is therefore probable that Dr. Chase’s theory must be abandoned. 
There is too much extant Greek literature for us lightly to accept a new 
meaning for a well-known word merely because Papias, Matthew, and 
Luke differ in their tradition as to the death of Judas. 

Early narratives as to the death of men distinguished either for good The tradi- 
or bad qualities are always liable to be coloured by the literary tradition por any 7A 
as to similar persons. This fact certainly has its bearing on the story of wicked. 
the death of Judas, From the complete contradiction between the three 
narratives, which do not fully agree in any point and differ sharply on 
most, it is clear that we have not much real recollection of fact. The 
question is whether we can trace any of the literary sources of the 

The account in Matthew is surely not independent of the LXX 2 Sam. xvii. 
story of the death of Ahithophel, who betrayed David; he also arjAOev 
eis Tov olkov adtod ... Kal amyyéato. Of course, if the account in 
Matthew be taken for history, the coincidence in language is due to the 
perception of the parallel ; but if it be regarded as unhistorical, it is 
probably the LXX parallel which produced the story in Matthew (ef. 

2 Sam. xvii. 23). 

The account in Acts is clearly influenced by Wisdom iv. 17 ff. : Wisdom iv. 

oWovrat yap TeAevTIV Topod 
kal od vonaovar ti €Bovretaato wept avdTov 
kai eis TL nopadicato avrov 6 Kupuos. 
dpovrat Kal eEovdevnoovow 
avtovs 8€ 6 KUpios exyeAdoerau 
kat eis UBpev év vexpois 8.’ aidvos 
ore pyfer aditods addvovs mpynveis 
kat carevores adrovs ek Oepediwv. 
kal ews €rxatov yeprwOjcovrat’ 
kal évovras év ddvvyn 
kal ) pvipn adt@v aroXeirat. 

2 Mace. ix. 

Ps. lxix. 


The whole passage is instructive, and attention may especially be 
called to pyfer . . . mpnveis. 

Finally, the account in Papias seems to be connected with the 
account in 2 Mace. ix. 7-18. The whole passage is too long to quote, 
but the following are the important parts : 

ovveBn be Kal meceiv abrdy dard TOU Epparos pepopevov pol&, Kat 
Svoyepet rropate mepurerovra wdvTa Ta pedn Tod Twpatos arorTpe- 
Brovoba. . . . wore Kal ex Tov Gdpatos Tov SvaceBovs oKwANKaS 
> a \ nw > 297 wis / ~ , > n 7 
avafeiv, kat (@vTos ev Odbvats Kal dAynddow Tas OdpKas avTod Svari@rev, 
brd 6€ THs Oops avTov wav 7d otpatréredov Bapiver Oar tiv campiav 
. 18 ereAnrvOer yap éx’ atrdyv dixaia 7 Tov Beod Kpiors. 

It is also possible that the tradition was influenced by Ps. lxix. 23 
cKxotiOytwrav of dpOadrpot abrav tod pi) BAérewv, and the whole 
apparatus of the death suitable for a traitor may be studied by a 
comparison of the version of the death of Herod the Great in Josephus, 
Antig. xvii. 6. 5, of the end of Catullus, the governor of Cyrene, in 
Jos. BJ. vii. 11. 4, and the story of the death of Nadan in Ahikar. 
(Cf. J. Rendel Harris, AJTh., July 1900, ‘Did Judas really commit 
suicide ?’) Finally, it is not impossible that the idea of traitors swelling 
up may be connected with Num. v. 21 ff., where swelling up (p70 in 
the LXX) is the fate which overtakes an unfaithful wife. But attempts 
to prove any conscious literary dependence of Matthew, Acts, or Papias 
on any one source, such as, for instance, the story of Ahikar, are to be 
deprecated. The truth probably is that there was a loose tradition of 
the way in which the death of a traitor ought to correspond to his 
offence. One writer put in one detail, the next added another, until 
finally nearly all had been incorporated. 

From a mass of unimportant contributions the follow ing stand out as 
of permanent value: Th. Zahn, ‘ Papias von Hierapolis’in TASK., 1866, 
pp. 680 ff. ; F. Overbeck, ‘ Uber zwei neue Ansichten von Zengnissen des 
Papias’ in Z WTh., 1867, pp. 39 ff. ; A. Hilgenfeld, ‘ Papias von Hierapolis, 
ZWTh, 1875, pp. 262 ff. These three form a complete Auseinander- 
setzung, and Hilgenfeld gives a full list of other writings on the subject. 
Zahn holds that Papias used Acts; Overbeck and Hilgenfeld take the 
opposite opinion. Since then the only important treatments of the 
subject are those, noted above, by J. Rendel Harris, AJTh., July 1900, 
and F. H. Chase, JTS, Jan. 1912. 

Notz V. Médprus 
By Ropert P. Casey 

In studying the history of the word pdprvus, scholars have been 
principally interested in explaining how, in early Christian documents, 
it gradually lost its usual sense of a witness at a trial and came to mean 

Vv Maprus 31 

one who testified to the truth of Christianity by sacrificing his life. In — 

orienting investigation to this point, it has not been sufficiently recognized 
that the transition from ‘witness’ to ‘martyr’ represents only one 
development of meaning, and that several others, instead of contributing 
directly to what later became the standard usage, ran parallel courses 
which were briefer but which possess considerable independent interest 
for the history of early Christian thought. All of these developments 
begin with a metaphorical application of the legal term, but all do 
not converge at the point where pdprus first clearly and unmistakably 
signifies a witness who died for Christianity. It is the purpose here to 
indicate several early conceptions of the Christian pdptvs which do not 
necessarily involve a witnessing with death, and to suggest in what way 
they may have contributed to the later idea of a Christian martyr. 

In the New Testament pdprvs often has the usual sense of a witness 
at a trial, as, for example, when Jesus was examined before the high 
priest,” the testimony (uaprvpia) offered by the Jews was so contradictory 
that even the prejudiced judge recognized its futility, but Jesus’ own 
evidence made further witnesses unnecessary, Ti éTs xpelav €xopev 
paptupov; At Stephen’s trial, also, witnesses were produced who later took 
part in the stoning (Acts vi. 13, vii. 58), and at Jerusalem Paul told the 
crowd that the high priest and elders would testify to his former zeal in 
persecuting the Christians, ws kal 6 dpx.epeds paptupe’ por Kal wav Td 
mpexButépiov, Acts #xxii. 5. Without immediate application to a legal 
trial, but sustaining its force in metaphor, are instances like Paul’s ‘God 
is my witness’ (Rom. i. 9, Phil. i. 8, 1 Thess. ii. 5), ‘You are my 
witness and God’ (1 Thess. ii. 10), and a more important group of 
passages in the gospels where the missionary work of the disciples 
involves testimony to the truth of the gospel or witness against its 
enemies. An instance of the latter is Mk. vi. 11, where the disciples are 
to shake the dust from their feet when leaving an inhospitable house, 
eis papttpiov avtois. An example of the former is Mk. xiii. 9, where 
Jesus tells the disciples that they will be brought to trial and beaten, 
and will stand before governors and kings, cis puptipiov avtois. The 
following verses are also significant, where it is clear that they are to 
testify under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and that the subject of 
their testimony is the original ‘good news’ of the imminent end of the 
world and coming of the kingdom of God. 

The first specific mention of Christian pdprupes is in Lk. xxiv. 46-49, 
where the risen Jesus says to his disciples, orws yéypartat waGeiv Tov 

1 There is a mass of literature of which the most important pieces are 
F. Kattenbusch, ‘ Der Martyrertitel,’ ZNT'W. iv. (1903), pp. 111-127; K. Holl, 
Gesammelte Aufsdtze (Berlin, 1928), pp. 68-115; R. Reitzenstein, ‘ Bemerkungen 
zur Martyrienliteratur,’ Gottingen Nachrichten, 1916, pp. 417-467; Hermes, lii. 
(1917), 442-452; G. Kriiger, ‘Zur Frage nach der Entstehung des Martyrertitels,’ 
ZNTW. xvii. (1916), pp. 264-269; H. Delehaye, Sanctus (Subsidia Hagio- 
graphica, 17), Brussels, 1927, pp. 74-121. 

2 Mark xiv. 59. 

3 Cf. Matt. xxiii. 29-32; Luke xi. 48; James v. 3. 

A witness at 
a trial. 

cal exten- 

Lk. xxiv. 


Xpurrov Kat dvarrivat €k  veKpav 7] Tpiry PEPE | kat KnpuxOijvar € eri TO 
dvdpare adTov perdvouay eis (aperw a dpapriav eis mavra Ta, €Ovn, dp£dpevor 
ard ‘Tepovoad jp bpeis padprupes TOUTOV. Kal idovd eLamooréhAw Ti 
érayyeAiav Tov ratpds pov ef tpas* bpeis 5€ kabioate ev TH TéAE ews 
0b évdvonobe €& tors Svvaytv. It is significant that there is no verb 
in the phrase ipeis paprupes TovTwv, and that even if éore be supplied 
with some manuscripts, the context indicates that the testifying will be 
done in the future, after the disciples have been clothed with power 
from on high. In view of the close relation between Luke and Acts, 
and especially of the obvious connexion between Lk. xxiv. 47 ff. and 
Acts i. 8, there can be no doubt that this ‘ power’ is the Spirit and that 
the promise was fulfilled at Pentecost. Here, therefore, as in Mk. xiii. 9, 
the pdprupes are to testify under the inspiration of the Spirit, but in 
Mk. xiii. 9 the subject of their testimony is the end of the world and the 
coming kingdom of God, while in Lk. xxiv. 46 ff. it is the passion and 
resurrection of the Messiah and the universal opportunity for repentance, 
offered in his name to all nations. 

eens From this point on the emphasis is laid on the testimony about Jesus, 
aderstepia al and especially his resurrection. This is clear from Peter’s speech on the 

necessity of filling Judas Iscariot’s place among the apostles, Acts i. 21-22 
Sef obv TOV GuveAGSvTwV Hpiv dvdpov év Tavti xpovm @ cionAGev Kat 
eEjrOev ef npas 6 kipios *Inoots, apEdpevos ard tov Bartioparos 
*lwdvov éws THs Huepas Hs dveAnppOn ad’ jpav, paptupa THs dvacrdcews 
adbrod atv jpiv yeverOar Eva tovTwv. The Apostles then prayed and 
cast lots so that the new member should be, like them, not only an eye- 
witness to the risen Jesus, but also chosen by him to testify. This 
theory is re-stated in Acts x. 40-43, with the additional claim that the 
apostles, as witnesses, are successors to the prophets. Peter speaking 
of Jesus says, ToUrov 6 Oeds Hyepev TH TpiTy Tepe Kal ewKev adrdv 
euavh yever Oar, od mavti TO Aag GAAG paprvor Tois TpoKExELpoToVy- 
pévous 07rd TOV Geod Hyiv, oirives cvvepadyopev kal cvveriopev adT@ peta 
TO dvarrTiva adrov €k vekpOv’ Kal rapnyyetAev jyiv knptEat TO Aap 
kal SvapaptipacGat Ste otrds éotiv 6 wpirpevos brd Tod Geod KpiTi)s 
(évtwv Kal vexpOv. TovTw mdvTes of TpoPyrat papTupoto., apercv 
dpaptiov AaBeiv did. Tod dvéparos aitod ravta Tov TirTevovTa Eis AUTO. 

The qualifi- The qualification of a paptvus in Luke-Acts is that he should be one 

— * of those fore-ordained of God to see the risen Jesus, and so an eye-witness 
of the Resurrection: toils mpoxeyeipotovnpévors td Tov Oeod piv, 
olrives cvvepdyouev Kal cvverlopev ait@ peta TO dvarrivat avrdv éx 
vexpov. The reference here is evidently to Lk. xxiv. 33 ff., where the 
risen Jesus appears before a company consisting of Cleopas and his 
companion on the walk to Emmaus (Lk. xxiv. 13, 18, 33), the eleven 
apostles, and their friends (rods évdexa kai tobs dv adtois). Two others 
are also described in Acts as martyrs, Paul and Stephen, for the same 
reason as the others, viz. they had seen the risen Jesus. 

Paul. When Ananias explains to Paul the significance of his vision on the 
Damascus road, his words are directly parallel to Acts x. 41 ff., 6 eds 

n A 4 an , , n vA > “ Ww 2 “A 
TOV TaTépwv Hav mpoexXetpicaTd oe yvOvat TS OEAnpa adrod Kal ideiv 

Madprus 33 

Tov dikatov Kal dkotoa: pwviv éx Tov ordparos avTov, bTt eon papTus 
ait mpds mavras dvOpwrous dv éSpakas kat jKovoas (xxii. 14 ff.), and 
in a parallel account in Acts xxvi. 16 the risen Jesus says to Paul, eis 
TOUTO yap SPOn col, ™poxerpiorac Bat oe darnperyy Kal pdptupa Ov Te 
eldés pe Ov Te 6fOjoropai Tou 9.> 

_ The case of Stephen is similar. In Acts “xxiii. Paul, having related 
his own conversion and appointment as a witness (xxii. 14), tells how 
he went to Jerusalem where év éxordoe: he saw Jesus, who told him to 
leave the city because the people would not receive his testimony (ddr 
ov mapadéEovrat cov paptupiav wept éuov). Paul replies, “‘ Lord, they 
know that I imprisoned and scourged in the synagogue those who believed 
in thee, and when the blood of Stephen, thy witness, was shed (kal dre 
eLextvvero Td aipa Lrepdvov Tov paprupds cov . . .), I also was standing 
by and consenting and keeping the garments of them that slew him.” In 
what sense was Stephen a pdprvs and how did he offer his testimony ? 
The answer is clear in the account of his death in Acts vii. 54 ff., “‘ And 
being filled with the Holy Spirit, gazing steadfastly into heaven, he 
saw the glory of God and Jesus standing on the right hand of God and 
said, ‘ Behold, I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing on 
the right hand of God.’”? The subject of Stephen’s testimony was his 
vision of the risen Jesus to which he bore immediate witness, and in 
doing so precipitated the violence of the crowd and met his death. 
There is nothing to suggest that his death was an essential part of his 
testimony. Stephen, like Paul, was an eye-witness to the risen Jesus, 
and the fact that he died in consequence of his testimony made him no 
more and no less a pdptus than Paul. 

The view of Christian martyrs and their testimony which we have 
been considering is characteristic of Luke-Acts, and is to some extent a 
development of the earlier conception found in Mark xiii. 9. In other 
writings of the New Testament somewhat different ideas are found. In 
the Epistles, Paul does not use the word pdprvs in the technical sense 
which it bears in Acts, and his use of paprvpetvy and its cognates shows 
that he had no conception of a closed group who on other grounds than 
possession of the Spirit could claim to be pdprupes Kat efoxxv to Jesus. 
His conception of the content of Christian testimony is also much broader, 
and includes not only the Resurrection but the whole substance of the 
revelation dispensed by the Spirit.1 In 1 Thess. ii. 11 f. he reminds his 
readers how he dealt with them as a father with his own children, 
exhorting them and encouraging and testifying (rapaxadovrtes tas Kat 
Trapapv0ovpevot Kat paptupdpevor) that they might walk worthily of 
God. Here paprvpdpevor is the equivalent of ‘preaching under inspira- 
tion,’ and with Eph. iv. 17 rotro ody Aéyw Kai paptipopar ev Kupi 
pyKere bpas Tepurateiy Kalas kal ta €Ovyn wepirare’ recalls the dis- 
tinction in 1 Cor. vii. 25 between the authority of the Spirit and the 
judgement of common sense. In several passages, also, papTvpiov stands 
for such inspired preaching (1 Thess. ii. 12, iv. 6; 2 Thess. i. 10; 1 Cor. 
i. 6, ii. 1). Nevertheless there is nothing in Paul’s use of waprupeiv and 

1 Cf. Rom. iii. 21; 1 Cor. i. 6, xv. 15; 2 Thess. i. 10. 
VOL. V . D 


Luke- Acts 
in contrast 
to other 




its cognates to indicate that he regarded it as having a technical 
significance. It is simply a convenient metaphor, sometimes employed 
in a way directly reminiscent of the Old Testament, more often to 
describe the impulsive character of moral or ecstatic experience. 

In the Johannine writings the word pdprvs does not appear in either 
the Gospels or the Epistles, but paptvpeiv and paprupia are of more 
frequent occurrence than anywhere else in the New Testament. In a 
few cases the usage is conventional, but in a group of passages a 
characteristic meaning appears, a hint of which is given in the Johannine 
paptupeiv wept... instead of the more usual dative. In the first 
chapter of the Gospel the mission of John the Baptist is described as 
giving testimony. In i. 7-8 John came eis paprupiay, iva paprupyry 
Tept TOU pwrds, iva. mavres Turrebowow oe avrTov. ovK iv éxelvos Td 
pis, GAN iva paptupioy wept Tod pwrds, and in i. 15 John paprupe? 
TEplt AVTOU Kal Kexpayev AEywv—odTOos iV O eiTwV—6 driaw pov EpxXdpEVvos 
e€pmrpooGév pov yéyovev, tt tpOTds pov hv, where the antecedent of adrovd 
is the Logos. In i. 19 John testifies about himself that he is neither 
Christ nor Elias but ‘the voice of one crying in the wilderness,’ but in 
i. 32 he gives the paprupia rept tod pwrds when he tells of the descent 
of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus and concludes: kdy@ édpaka kat pepap- 
TipyKa Ott obTds eoTiv 6 vids TOD Geov. John’s testimony is to a fact, 
the descent of the Spirit upon Jesus, but the real paprupia is the con- 
sequence of that fact: that Jesus is the Logos, the Light, the Son of 
God. The contrast with the account in the Synoptics is interesting. 
There the Baptist does not testify to Jesus in particular but proclaims 
the coming of the Messiah, and knows nothing of the vision of the dove 
which appears as a sign to Jesus and not to him. When John is in 
prison he is still ignorant of Jesus’ Messiahship, and Jesus testifies con- 
cerning him that he was greater than a prophet and the Elias that was 
to come. In the Synoptics Jesus appears as the fulfilment of John’s 
prophecies; the Fourth Gospel recognizes Jesus as the Messiah, and 
the paprupia of Jesus confirms the proclamation of John. In John iii. 
26 ff., when the Jews come to the Baptist and tell him that Jesus to © 
whom he had borne witness was now baptizing and attracting great 
crowds, John reminds them that he had testified that he himself was 
not the Christ, and that now Christ had come his work was done. ‘ He 
who comes down from heaven is above all. He bears witness to what 
he has seen and heard and no one receives his testimony. He who does 
receive his testimony affirms that God is truthful.” John’s claim for 
Jesus’ testimony is confirmed by Jesus himself, who says to the wondering 
Nicodemus, ‘‘ “P speak that we do know and testify to what we have 
seen, and you do not receive our testimony.” In this chapter the 
testimony concerns baptism and the Spirit, but later it is the person of 
Jesus and his connexion with the Father that is the central point about 
which all other evidence is grouped. In v. 31 ff. Jesus compares the 
testimony which the Jews ask from John concerning him with the 
testimony which he has from the Father: ‘ But I have testimony better 
than John’s for the works which the Father has given me to do, these 

v Maprtus | 35 

very works which I do testify of me that the Father has sent me, and 
the Father who has sent me has testified about me.” This theme is 
repeated in viii. 18 f. and in x. 25ff. The works which none other could 
do (xv. 24) are the miracles which are testimony both to himself and 
to the world of his prerogatives. 

After Jesus’ death the work of testifying is to go on under the 
direction of the Paraclete. ‘‘But when the Paraclete is come, whom I 
will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of Truth who proceeds from 
the Father, he shall bear witness of me, and you also are bearing witness 
because you have been with me from the beginning.” 1 The testimony 
of the disciples and of the Spirit in the Christian life of future generations 
was undoubtedly in preaching, but the idea of the Spirit in the Fourth 
Gospel includes an influence on conduct as well as thought, and keeping 
the commandments (John xiv.-xv.) plays a similar réle in the paptvupia of 
the disciples as miracles in that of Jesus, and the emphasis on keeping 
commandments in chapters xiv.-xv. shows that the paprvpia of the 
disciples also included works. 

Nevertheless paprupety and paprvpia in the Fourth Gospel do not 
appear as technical terms, but as a natural and favourite metaphor of 
the author’s to describe Jesus’ knowledge of himself and his disciples’ 
appreciation of his significance. There is no class of paprvpes as in 
Acts who having been with Jesus from his baptism are competent to 
speak of what they have seen and heard in his company. The xAnroi 
bear witness to supernatural truths to which the ordinary man has no 
access, and offer their evidence before a hostile world, but the case has 
been prejudged in heaven, and only in the court of last appeal will the 
truth prevail and the accusers stand accused. 

The conception of Christian aprvs in the Apocalypse is directly con- The Apo- 
nected with that of the Fourth Gospel.? As in the latter, Jesus testifies °#!YPs¢- 
to heavenly facts of which he is an eye-witness, and his followers testify . 
both to his person and to his teaching by proclaiming Christian doctrine 
and in keeping the commandments. Christians are those who are in 
possession of Jesus’ testimony, and when this is defined, Rev. xix. 10 ») 
yap paptupia Incot éextiv rd rvetpa THs Tpopyreias, it means primarily 
that Christians advance the truth under the inspiration of the Spirit. 
It is evident that the Apocalypse was written at a time when the con- 
sequences of such testifying were dangerous, and often fatal. The author 
sees the Woman drunk with the blood of the saints and pdprupes,? and 
beneath the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of 
God and for the paprvpia which they had,‘ but it is quite clear that 
death and paprvpia are not equivalents. Some pdprupes have had to 
die for their testimony, but they died because they were pdprupes and 
did not become pdprupes because they died. It is often supposed that 
Antipas was a martyr in the later sense, because in ii. 13 he is called 

1 John xv. 26. 
2 Cf. Rev. i. 5, 9, iii. 14, vi. 9, xii. 11, 17, xvii. 6, xix. 10. 
3 Rev. xvii. 6. 4 Rev. vi. 9. 

The evolu- 
tion of the 


*Avrimas 6 pdptus pov 6 rurtds, Os arextévOn rap tpiv, drov 6 
Laravas xatovxei, but it is more likely that here as in other cases death 
followed upon the testimony which, in this case, is presented in contrast 
to the later corruptions of the Nicolaitans. 

In the Johannine writings we have observed the transition from a 
testimony of words to a testimony of deeds. The miracles of Jesus and 
the virtuous conduct of the faithful are evidence of Christian truth. Never- 
theless the element which became constitutive in the Christian concep- 
tion of paprvs, viz. that the witness offers evidence not by living but by 
dying, is not yet present. It appears in two passages, one in the Epistle 
to the Hebrews, the other in 1 Timothy. The cloud of witnesses (Heb. 
xii. 1) who testify by their faith to the promise of immortality which 
awaits them are not missionaries but heroes. They have ventured much 
and suffered much, and their deeds are the evidence of things hoped for 
but not clearly perceived. The other passage is 1 Tim. ii. 5ff., where 
the author explains that the death of Jesus was the evidence to that 
generation of the possibility of universal salvation, «is yap Geds, efs Kal 
pecityns Geod kat avOpdirwv, advOpwros Xpwrrds “Inoots, 6 dobs éavrdv 
dvtiAvtpov trép mdvTwv, TO papTipiov Katpois idiows, eis O ereOnv eyo 
Kipvé kat dréatoAos: ddjOeav AéEyw ev Xprore od Pevsouat, SiddoKaXdos 
eOvav ev Tiare: Kat dAnOeia, This isthe firstcase of martyrdom in the later 
sense. Here the death of Jesus is the testimony of which Paul is the herald 
and apostle, and Jesus offers the evidence by the sacrifice of his life. 

We have shown that before the great persecutions, the general idea 
of Christian pdprupes as inspired witnesses to Christian truth played a 
considerable réle, and that when the persecutions began and many 
witnesses must die for their testimony, they retained their title without 
altering its meaning. At the time of the Apocalypse a pdprus is a 
witness whether he lived or died for the truth to which he testified, but 
shortly after this paptupeiv begins to have the sense of dying for the 
faith,! and the distinction between pdptvs and duodoyjrys ? indicates a 
growing tendency to reserve the former word for those who have given 
their lives. The reason for this specialization of meaning appears to be 
a natural development of the times. From the beginning pdprvs and 
paptupety were connected with the idea of Christian propaganda, but 
before the persecutions the usual methods of propaganda were public 
preaching and the realization of the Christian moral ideal, coupled with 
a zeal for Christian doctrine. The use of these words to describe these 
forms of activity persisted for some time, but during the persecutions 
external circumstances provided a new and sensational way of testifying 
to Christian truth, viz. admitting one’s allegiance to Christ with the 
assurance that death would follow. This simple admission was more 
telling and, as we know from abundant evidence, produced a much 
greater impression upon pagans as testimony to Christianity than many 
hours of preaching or years of quiet conscientious living. The Christians, 

1 Cf. 1 Clem. v. 4. 
2 Delehaye, op. cit. pp. 85 ff. Ibid. pp. 109 ff. 


therefore, who died for their admission became witnesses par excellence, 
although the term was still occasionally applied to those who continued 
to witness in the old way. 


By Krrsopr LAKE 

1. The Twelve 

The Twelve are mentioned in the Marcan narrative of the synoptic 
Gospels as having been appointed by Jesus, and they are referred to 
nine times as of dédexa without the addition of the word amécroAos 
(Mark iv. 10, vi. 7, ix. 35, x. 32, xi. 11, xiv. 10, 17, 20, 43). They are 
mentioned by this title in Matthew only in six places, all apparently taken 
from Mark, the same number of times in Luke, and four times in John 
(vi. 67, 70, 71, and xx. 24), They are, however, only mentioned once 
in Acts by this title (Acts vi. 2) and only once in the Pauline Epistles 
(1 Cor. xv. 5), where they appear as the witnesses of the Resurrection. 
In the non-Marcan parts of the synoptic Gospels the most significant 
passage is Mt. xix. 28 (= Luke xxii. 30), where, though the phrase ‘the 
Twelve’ is not used, the promise is made to the disciples that they shall 
sit on twelve thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (See Vol. I. 
pp. 295 ff.) 

The choice of the Twelve is related in Mark iii. 14 ff. = Matt. x. 2 ff. Mark. 
= Luke vi. 13 ff. 

The original meaning of the narrative, as given in Mark, is that the 
Twelve were the special lieutenants of Jesus, appointed by him to preach 
and to exorcise demons. In chap. vi. 7 Mark gives an account of a 
special mission in which the Twelve were sent out, by twos, in fulfilment 
of their function, with a few simple instructions for their conduct. The 
successful return of the Twelve to Jesus is not narrated until Mark vi. 
30, the story being interrupted to make room for the long episode of 
the death of John the Baptist. 

Matthew telescopes together Mark iii. 14 ff. and Mark vi. 7 ff., and Matthew. 
adds considerably to the address given by Jesus to the Twelve. 

Luke takes over the Marcan account of the appointment of the Luke. 
Twelve in its proper place (so that Mark iii. 13-19 = Luke vi. 12-16), 
but significantly enough he omits the Marcan statement of the function 
of the Twelve—to preach and to cast out demons—and instead says 
that Jesus called them Apostles (which Mark does not say 4), obviously in 
anticipation of his second book—<Acts. Later on, when he comes to it, 
he also takes over from Mark the account of the mission of the Twelve 

1 There can be little doubt but that in Mark iii. 14 the addition ods kai 
dmocréXous dvduacev is a Western non-interpolation from Luke. It is found in 
NSBCAO and the Caesarean minuscules but not in the Old Latin or Old Syriac. 

Matt. x. 5-8. 


described in Mark vi. and the address given them by Jesus (so that 
Mark vi. 7-13=Luke ix. 1-6), and once more he has considerably 
rewritten the rather simple sentences of Mark. Luke was also acquainted 
with some of the additional matter which Matthew added to the address 
of Jesus to the Twelve. But he put this into a separate context—the 
further mission of seventy apostles'—which is quite peculiar to him. 
Moreover, the sections which Luke took from Matthew’s additional 
matter do not contain any of the significant paragraphs, On the other 
hand some of the paragraphs which are found both in Matthew and in 
Luke are considerably longer in Luke than in Matthew. 

The significant verses, found in Matthew but not in Luke, are these : 
“Depart not into a way of Gentiles, but go rather to the lost sheep of 
the house of Israel. And as ye go make proclamation that the Kingdom 
of Heaven is at hand. Heal sick, raise dead, cleanse lepers, cast out 
demons ; freely ye received, freely give (x. 5-8). . . . And when they 
persecute you in this city flee to the next; for verily I say to you, Ye 
shall not finish the cities of Israel before the Son of Man come (x. 23).” 

The problem of these verses is dealt with in Vol. I. pp. 314 ff., and 
though a heavy stream of criticism has flowed under the bridges since 
its publication I do not see any necessity for change on any important 
point except one.? I then argued that the gospel of Matthew represented 
a conflation of the views of Jewish and Gentile Christians (cf. esp. 
Matt. xxiv. 14 (=Mark xiii. 10) and Matt. x. 5, 23). This still 
seems to me to be true, but whereas I then thought that the significant 
parts of Matt. x. were the propaganda of Jewish Christians, not the 
words of Jesus, I now incline to think*® that they probably represent 

1 This may be a fragment of history which Mark has omitted, but unlike the 
Twelve the Seventy appear to have played no prominent part in the growth of 
the Church. Even their names are unknown to us, and the lists of pseudo- 
Dorotheos and others (conveniently published in Schermann’s Propheten- und 
Apostellegenden) are obviously late and valueless compilations. It may be 
plausibly suggested that the Seventy are merely an echo of the Seventy Elders 
appointed by Moses in Numbers xi. 16 ff., but they are more probably connected 
with the belief (based on Gen. x.) that there are seventy nations of mankind. 

2 On which my opinion was changed by Burkitt’s writings, public and 
private, and by his conversation. 

3 The hesitating nature of this phrase is not merely formal. No final 

_ judgement can be made, because it ought to be based on a previous investigation 

into Matthew’s and Luke’s methods of composition and of their relation to each 
other. Did Matthew ‘ collect’ the Sermon on the Mount, or did Luke ‘separate’ 
its component parts? Did either know the work of the other? Who can 
really solve these puzzles? The last half-century has really dealt very satis- 
factorily with the relation between Mark and the other synoptists, though the 
question of the original text of Mark as used by Matthew and Luke has been 
largely neglected, but the same cannot be said for the study of Matthew and 
Luke. Here almost everything remains to be done, and reconstructions of Q 
have been too often accepted as final, instead of as preliminary to the necessary 
study of details. (Cf. A. von Harnack, Sayings of Jesus, pp. x.-xiv.) 


genuine words of Jesus which may have been known to Luke and 
excluded by him as too contradictory to the ‘ Mission to the Gentiles.’ 

In the Marcan narrative there is no suggestion that the Twelve were 
regarded as the foundation of a new organization. They are preachers 
who are sent out by Jesus in fulfilment of his own mission. If the 
verses quoted above from Matthew be taken as belonging to a primitive 
document they go even further. They mean that when the Twelve 
were sent out on their mission Jesus expected the parousia of the Son of 
Man before they finished their task. What was to be their position in 
the future, when the Son of Man did come? The answer of the 
document called Q is clear—they would be assessors at the Judgement. 
“Ye shall sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” 
(Matt. xix. 28 = Luke xxii. 30). The main argument for thinking the 
Marcan-Matthaean concept of the work of the Twelve and their eschato- 
logical function to be primitive is that it was so soon falsified by the 
event that it can hardly be fiction. (See also below, p. 393.) Who 
would have invented it? Cut bono? 

But in the early chapters of Acts, and in the later Christian literature, 
the Twelve have a different function and a different name. ‘They are 
called ‘ Apostles’—a very strange word in Greek, though familiar in 
English—and their main function is to give the message about Jesus, 
rather than the message of Jesus, which is not mentioned in any of the 
missionary sermons quoted in Acts, or referred to in the Pauline Epistles. 
Moreover—and this is really the heart of the whole problem of Christian 
origins—the Twelve Apostles are no longer merely healers, exorcists, 
and the announcers of the End and of repentance opening the door to 
the New Age (as Mark vi. and Matt. x. make them), or even witnesses 
to Jesus, but in addition to all this are the inspired and miraculously 
powerful heads of a new society—the Church—endowed with the power 
to confer the gift of the Holy Spirit, which they had themselves received 
from the risen and glorified Jesus. 

The earlier 
view of the 

The later 

This Church is a prominent, probably the central feature of the genera] The Church. 

Weltanschauung of Acts. Its constituent elements are indicated by the 
variety of names used to describe its members (for a full discussion of 
which see Addit. Note 30); but perhaps the most significant description 
of them, at least for the present purpose, is the phrase cw(djevo.— 
another of those remarkable words which did so much to make history 
by the varying connotation which they had for Greek or Jewish ears. 

To the original Jewish Christians ‘the saved’ meant those who were 
‘safe’ at the Judgement and would thus pass into the life of the World to 
Come; to unconverted Greeks it meant those whose nature had been 
changed from human and mortal to divine and immortal; to Greek 
Christians it had both connotations. At a later stage, visible in Acts 
and in the Epistles, teachers combined these with the idea of ‘the Way,’ 
and so added to Greek Christianity the typically Jewish concept of the 
value of conduct, and of salvation as partly conditional on a good life. 
Nevertheless, in spite of the variation produced by this and other conno- 
tations, the most important aspect of the Church, as it was destined to 

‘The saved.’ 

The Twelve 
in Acts i.-v. 
and else- 

nature of 
the Twelve. 


be throughout its history, is already clear in Acts. It is the society of 
the ‘saved,’ who have attained salvation by the Holy Spirit? given by 
the risen Jesus to the Apostles, and afterwards by the Apostles to those 
who are worthy. 

Thus the main feature of Catholic Christianity—the existence of an 
Apostolic Church—is clearly visible in the Acts and Epistles. Between 
them, however, there is one significant difference. In Acts i.-v. the 
Church is governed by the Twelve, and the Twelve are the ‘ Apostles.’ 
So much importance is attached to the number that Matthias is elected 
to fill the place left empty by the defection of Judas the Traitor. This 
theory that the Church was governed by the Twelve is perpetuated in 
the great mass of Didactic Literature, and became the dominant theory 
of Catholicism. But in the Pauline Epistles, though the Church is as 
important and as supernaturally constituted under Apostolic leadership 
as in Acts i-v., the Apostles are not the ‘Twelve,’ and there is no trace 
of any special limitation of the number of the Apostles. Moreover, this 
is not because Paul is ignorant of the Twelve, but in spite of the fact 
that he knows them. Similarly, in Acts, after the beginning of 
chapter vi. the Twelve are not mentioned. The leaders of the Church 
are the ‘ Apostles,’ but their head is James the brother of the Lord, not 
one of the ‘Twelve’ This agrees with the Pauline view, but not with 
Acts i.-v. Here too, as in so many cases, Acts appears to be a com- 
bination of ideas and theories, as well as of sources and traditions. 

Influenced by this double usage of the word Apostle, some critics have 
argued that there is no historic foundation for the story of the appointment 
of the Twelve. This theory seems unnecessary. The historical fact is 
that the Apostles, in the narrower sense, are represented in Acts as 
preaching the resurrection of Jesus. Apart from the limitation of 
number, which is for the moment unimportant, there can be no doubt but 
that this is probably true. The resurrection of Jesus was by common 
consent the centre of the apostolic preaching. If the synoptic Gospels had 
represented Jesus as choosing twelve disciples in order to preach his 
resurrection, there would be some reason for saying that this was an 
attempt to give the authority of the master to the preaching of the 
disciples. But what are the facts? That Mark represents Jesus as 
commissioning the Twelve, that they might be with him, and that he 
might send them out to preach and to have power to cast out devils. To 
preach, that is to say, the message which he himself was announcing, 
the coming of the Kingdom and the necessity of repentance (Mk. iii. 14). 
Similarly, according to a narrative peculiar to Matthew but connected by 
him with the appointment of the Twelve (Mt. x. 5 ff.), it was specially 
enjoined on them to preach only in Israel, and their commission was to 
heal the sick, to raise the dead, to cleanse the lepers, to cast out devils. 
As they went they were to announce that the Kingdom of Heaven was at 

1 Is this quite as true of the earlier as it is of the later parts of Acts? Had 
Philip’s converts in Samaria attained salvation before they received the Spirit ? 
(See further Additional Notes 9 and 11.) 


hand. They would raise opposition by this preaching, but before they 
had gone through the cities of Israel the Son of Man would come. 
Could there be anything less like the course of history, or the message 
which they actually preached, as represented in Acts or by the Epistles of 
Paul? If Acts and the Epistles represent the actual preaching of the 
Apostles, Mark iii. 14 and Mt. x. 5 ff. cannot have been invented in order 
to give the authority of Jesus to the preaching of the Apostles. It is of 
course possible that in the original form of the story the instructions 
of Jesus were given to all his disciples and not to a limited number, but 
why in that case should the story of the appointment of the Twelve have 
been so closely connected with it? Were it an invention it would surely 
be possible to see the reason for which it was put in. 

2. The Names of the Twelve 

The question of the names of the Twelve stands on a different level. 
It is quite possible that the actual names were lost and that there is 
confusion in the tradition. This can be seen in the first place from a 
double tradition of the names of the Apostles. 

In Mt. x. 2, Mk. iii. 16, Lk. vi. 14, Acts i, 13, there are given The N.T. 
lists of the Twelve, with only the small differences which can be seen in ™*4ition. 

the following table : 

MARK. Mart. LUKE. Acts, 
Peter Peter Peter Peter 
James Andrew Andrew John. 
John James James James 
Andrew John John Andrew 
Philip Philip Philip Philip 
Bartholomew Bartholomew Bartholomew Thomas 
Matthew Thomas Matthew Bartholomew 
Thomas Matthew Thomas Matthew 
James of James of James of James of 
Alphaeus Alphaeus Alphaeus Alphaeus 
Thaddaeus 2 Thaddaeus Simon the Simon the 
Zealot Zealot 
Simon the Simon the Judas of Judas of 
Kananean Kananean James James 

Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot Judas Iscariot 

The variations are only in the order of names, except that Thaddaeus 
is replaced in Luke and Acts by Judas of James. 

A curiously different tradition seems preserved in two possibly 
independent forms in the Apostolic Church Orders and in the Epistola 

1 Or possibly Lebbaeus: both in Mark and Matthew there is much early 
variation in the text. But Thaddaeus seems the earlier reading, and Lebbaeus 
may be merely a Graecized form of Levi, in ignorance of, or in contradiction to, 
the theory which identified Levi with Matthew. 

tradition in 
Apost. KO. 


(i.) The Apostolic Church Orders (Apostolische Kirchenordnwng) is a 
document of uncertain age. It is probably not later than 300 or earlier 
than 150. It is found in Greek in a manuscript at Vienna (cod. Vindobon. 
hist. gr. 7 [formerly 45]), and partially in manuscripts in Rome (Oftobon. 
gr. 408) and in Moscow (Biblioth. synod. 125). It is also preserved in 
the corpus of Church law found in Latin in the very ancient Verona 
palimpsest (Hauler, pp. 93-101) and in Syriac, Arabic, Bohairic, Sahidic, 
and Ethiopic. The first edition is that of J. W. Bickell, Geschichte des 
Kirchenrechts, 1843, pp. 107 ff. Later editions are by P. de Lagarde, 
Reliquiae juris eccl. antig. Graec., 1856, pp. 74 ff. (not to be confused with 
his edition in Bunsen’s Analecta Ante-Nicaena, 1854, which is a retransla- 
tion into Greek from the Coptic) ; J. B. Pitra, Juris eccl. Graecorum historia 
et monumenta, 1864, vol. i. pp. 75 ff. (a text to be recommended, among 
other things, for the beauty of its printing); Hilgenfeld, Novwm Testa- 
mentum extra canonem receptum, 1866; A. Harnack, ‘Lehre der zwolf 
Apostel,”’ TU. it. 1, 1884; and F. X. Funk, Doctrina duodecim 
apostolorum, 1887. 

The relation of this document to the general body of pseudo-apostolic 
literature is obscure and complex. It appears to have been part of a 
collection containing the Didascalia, the Avostolic Church Orders, and 
the Egyptian Church Orders, of which the last was recently identified by 
Schwartz, and independently but a little later by Connolly, as the Traditio 
Apostolica of Hippolytus (see Connolly, ‘ The So-called Egyptian Church 
Orders’ in Teats and Studies, viii. 4). This collection became the foundation 
of the Apostolic Constitutions in the fourth century, and also is found in 
a somewhat different composition in which it was combined with the 
xvi titlot of John Scholasticus, and passed into the Syriac Octateuch of 
Clement and other oriental books of canonical law. 

The Apostolic Church Orders was generally but not always included 
in these collections. Its history has been elucidated by Benesevic’s 
treatise on the xvi titloc, unfortunately accessible only in Russian, and 
in Ed. Schwartz’s very valuable Uber d. pseudo-apostol. Kirchenordnungen, 
1910. It is important to note that though the Apostolic Church Orders 
has been printed by most editors as a separate document, it is not so 
found in any manuscript or version. It is, however, sufficiently clear 
from its nature that it was originally independent. Its origin was 
discussed first by Krawutzcky in his ‘ Uber das altkirchliche Unterrichts- 
buch, die zwei Wege oder die Entscheidung des Petrus,’ Theol. Quartal- 
schrift, 1882, iii. pp. 359 ff., in which he indicated clearly the general 
characteristics of a document which lay behind the present one. One 
year later Bryennius published the Didache, which proved to be not 
exactly the document indicated by Krawutzcky, but an immediate 
descendant of it. 

The list of In the light of this discovery A. von Harnack wrote his magistral 
ton '" <Lehre der zwélf Apostel’ in 7'U. ii. 1 in 1884, in which on pp. 193 ff. 
he dealt with the Apostolic Church Orders. For the present purpose it is 
unnecessary to pursue all the details of his analysis. The point which is 
important is that an early editor made use of a list of the apostles which ran: 


John, Matthew, Peter, Andrew, Philip, Simon, James, Nathanael, 
Thomas, Cephas, Bartholomew, Jude of James. 

The greater part of the Didache, rather freely edited, was distributed 
among these Apostles, with the exception of Judas of James, who was 
given nothing. Harnack aud others therefore concluded that the redactor 
made use of an early uncanonical list of the Apostles containing only 
eleven names, Judas of James being a later interpolation, but no light 
was thrown on the identity of this source or on its affiliations until the 
discovery of another document. 

(ii.) In 1895 there appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Prussian The 
Academy an account of ‘Eine bisher unbekannte altchristliche Schrift in phage 
koptischer Sprache,’! by Carl Schmidt, at that time a scholar of the German 
Imperial Archaeological Institute in Egypt. Schmidt was helped in 
further research on this document by Pierre Lacau, the Egyptologist, but 
a full publication was delayed in the hope of wider knowledge, which 
came gradually. 

The first step was the discovery in Vienna by Dr. Bick, the librarian, 
of a palimpsest, originally from Bobbio, of a Latin version of the same 
document.?. Schmidt then determined to publish the Coptic text, and 
in 1910 this had already been printed, when the present Provost of 
Eton, Dr. James, noticed an article by the Abbé Guerrier in the Revue de 
VOrient Chrétien, entitled ‘Un testament (éthiopien) de Notre Seigneur et 
Sauveur Jésu-Christ en Galilée.’ He wrote to Schmidt, who in turn 
corresponded with Guerrier, and it was found that this Ethiopic document, 
which Dillmann had known but not thought worth publication, was 
identical with the Coptic apocryphon. Schmidt once more delayed his 
publication until Guerrier was ready, and it was not until 1913 that 
Guerrier published the text, with a French translation, in the Patrologia 
Orientalis of Graffin and Nau.® 

Finally in 1919 Schmidt published in volume xliii. of the Texte und 
Untersuchungen* a parallel translation of the Epistola from Coptic and 
Ethiopic, with full discussions of all the questions connected with it. 

Guerrier’s publication had never attracted much attention, partly 
because it was unaccompanied by any introduction indicating its im- 
portance, but chiefly because its title was misleading and its contents 
composite. The title ‘Testament of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ’ 
implies some connexion with the Testamentum Domini of Rahmani®; but 
the opening chapters dissipate this notion, for they contain merely an 

1 Sitzwngsberichte der phil.-hist. Classe vom 20 Juni, 1895. 

2 Wiener Palimpseste, I. Teil. Cod. Palat. Vindobonensis 16, olim Bobbiensis 
(Sttzungsber. d. k. Akad. d. Wissensch. in Wien, phil.-hist. Klasse, Band clix. 
7 Abteil.), and Hauler, Wiener Studien, 1908, Bd. xxx. pp. 308 ff. 

3 Vol. ix. part 3, Le Testament en Galilée de Notre Seigneur Jésus-Christ. 

* The title is Gesprdche Jesu mit seinen Jiingern nach der Auferstehung, 
ein katholisch-apostolisches Sendschreiben des 2ten Jahrhunderts ; but in the body 
of the book Schmidt always speaks of the document as the EZpistola Apostolorwm. 

5 Testamentum domini nostri Jesu Christi, 1899. 


apocalypse, important mainly for its delineation of Antichrist. Guerrier 
seems to have been ignorant of Schmidt’s preliminary notice in the Berlin 
Sitzungsberichte, and probably only the interest of M. R. James in the 
Antichrist led him to notice the book and read it through, and discover 
that in the middle its character suddenly changed. But Schmidt now 
showed beyond all doubt that the title ‘Testament of the Lord’ was 
taken from the ordinary book of that name, which was accidentally 
associated with the other document in the Ethiopic copy. He also shows 
—what is self-evident when it is pointed out—that the first eleven 
chapters of Guerrier’s document have nothing in common with the 
remainder of it, which contains an Epistola Apostolorum identical with the 
Coptic document. The Coptic is an incomplete manuscript of a better 
text, while the Ethiopic is a complete manuscript of a worse text. Both 
are based, directly or indirectly, on a lost Greek original from which the 
Latin palimpsest, unfortunately only a small fragment, was also derived. 

The date of this document is tolerably certain, and greatly enhances 
its value. It states that the second advent will take place in the year 
120 after Christ, which from the context seems to mean 120 years 
after the Resurrection. This is the date given by the Coptic; the 
Ethiopic puts 150 instead of 120, which seems to be an attempt to give 
the date in terms of a chronology beginning from the birth of Christ, 
but even if the Ethiopic be the correct text, a document belonging to 
the year 180 in our reckoning is a sufficiently valuable discovery. In 
general there can be little doubt but that before 180 is the latest date to 
which the Hpistola can be referred, and before 150 seems to me more 

The provenance of the Epistola is doubtful, though Schmidt’s view 
that it comes from Ephesus probably has the most arguments in its 
favour. The points on which discussion is always likely to turn are the 
references to Cerinthus, which indicate that Cerinthus and the Epistola 
belong to the same locality, and—unfortunately for the present purpose 
—the list of the Apostles. 

Schmidt has a long excursus on Cerinthus and the Alogi, in which he 
controverts Eduard Schwartz, who in 1914 had argued that the tradition 
of Irenaeus linking Cerinthus with Ephesus was quite untrustworthy.? 

1 Can Papias have been referring to the Zpistola when he expressed his famous 
preference for oral tradition to that which was written ? 

2 Zeitschrift fiir die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 1914, pp. 210 ff. Schmidt 
endeavours to refute Schwartz and re-establish the old tradition, incidentally 
dealing at length with the question of the Alogi. In this he may be right, 
and it is perhaps more probable that Cerinthus belongs to Ephesus than 
elsewhere, but the whole question may well be re-opened. Whether, however, 
he is right in thinking that Cerinthus cannot have been a Judaist is more 
doubtful, and the whole question is still full of difficulties. Was it impossible 
for a man to be a Judaizer and a Docetist at the same time? Before this 
question can be answered we shall probably be brought back once more to the 
problem whether Ignatius in his epistles was attacking one party or two; but 
to discuss these points here would be to wander too far afield. 


The connexion of Cerinthus with Ephesus and of the Epistola with 
Cerinthus is the main argument which Schmidt brings forward, but he 
also attaches great weight to the fact that the Hpistola commands the 
celebration of the Passover in commemoration of the death of Christ, 
and connects this with the Quartodecimans of Asia. 

The main argument against this reasoning is the generally supposed 
connexion of the Apostolic Church Orders with Egypt, and the similarity 
of the list of the Apostles in the Hpistola and in the Apost. KO. Neverthe- 
less the reasons for connecting the Apost. KO. with Egypt are very flimsy— 
there is in fact nothing in them which indicates their origin. 

The Lpistola enumerates the Apostles as follows : The list 
John, Thomas, Peter, Andrew, James, Philip, Bartholomew, ya 
Matthew, Nathanael, Judas Zelotes, Kephas. in the 

Schmidt argues that this is the source of the list in the Apost. KO. erie 
Certainly both lists have eleven names, thus implying that though 
recognizing the defection of Judas Iscariot, they knew nothing of the 
choice of a successor. Moreover, the only difference in the names is that 
Simon is replaced by Judas Zelotes, and that this is not an accident is 
suggested by the similar reading of the Old Latin codices a bg h in 
Matthew x. 3 which reads Judas Zelotes instead of Thaddaeus, who in 
Matthew seems to be substituted for Judas of James in Luke, and comes 
immediately before Simon the Zealot. Schmidt thinks that this list in 
the Epist, Apost. is the source of that in the Apostolic Church Orders 
in spite of the difference of order. Certainly it represents a cognate 
tradition. But the possibility of a common source seems to me not 
inconsiderable. (See Baumstark, ‘Alte und neue Spuren eines ausser- 
kanonischen Evangeliums [vielleicht des Agypterevangeliums]’ in the 
ZNTW., 1913, and for a curious point of connexion with Hippolytus see 
the same writer's ‘ Hippolytus und die ausserkanonische Evangelienquelle’ 
in ZNTW., 1914, pp. 332 ff.) 

Assuming, then, that the Epist. Apost, and the Apost. KO. at least 
represent a tradition either Ephesian or Egyptian in origin other than 
the canonical, it may be asked whether it has any claims to serious 
consideration. The decisive question is clearly the differentiation of Peter 
from Kephas.1_ This cannot be right, and seems to show that the list is 
inferior to the canonical. But the question may well be raised whether 
the absence of any allusion to Matthias as the successor of Judas Iscariot 
does not indicate that the story in Acts i. was either unknown to the 
compiler or was rejected by him. 

It is obvious that both these traditions may contain some doublets, Doublets. 
This is certainly true of the second list if Kephas be really identical with 
Peter. It is possibly also true of the list in the Gospels, for Thomas can 

1 On the history of this differentiation see G. La Piana, Harvard Theological 
Review, vol, xiv. (1921), pp. 187 ff. It was often used to remove from Peter 
the stigma implied by Gal. ii. 11. It was not Peter but Kephas who was 

in classical 

The LXX.} 


The N.T. 



searcely be a real name since it merely means ‘twin,’ and the old Syriac 
tradition says that he was Jude the Lord’s brother. And if Lebbaeus be 
the right form of the text in Mark iii. 18 it probably is a Greek method 
of writing Levi, who is usually identified with Matthew. It is perhaps 
unprofitable to speculate far in the elucidation of the names in the lists 
of the Apostles, for certainty is unattainable ; but it is probably true that 
the confusions imply some very early loss of exact knowledge of the 

3. The Word ’AréoroXos 

In every language there is a word to describe a person who is sent 
by the king or by the magistrates to act as their authorized representative. 
The Aramaic word for such persons is omw, There is nothing un- 
usual about it, and if Jesus sent out authorized representatives as Mark 
says that he did, this is the name which he would naturally have used. 
In the New Testament this is generally rendered into Greek by dzé- 
atoXos, but this word, though etymologically correct, is not customary 
in non-Christian Greek. 

The word dmécroXos has had a curious history. The cognate word 
admootoAy was used in classical Greek to describe a mission, and the 
verb drooréX\Aw was common in this sense. “AmdorodXos is found only 
once in the sense of a messenger, but is common as an adjective in the 
phrase ¢rdéoroXAa wAoia, and so came to be used substantivally with the 
meaning of ‘a fleet,’ while drooroAe’s meant an admiral. In classical 
Greek of the later period dréaroXos has no other meaning than ‘ fleet,’ 
though Hesychius says that it could mean an admiral, giving the 
definition drécroAos, orparnyds Kata. tAODY TEepmdpevos. 

For déaroXos in the sense of ‘envoy’ there is in classical Greek 
only the example, referred to above, from Herodotus i. 21; cf. v. 38. 
It is also found in this sense only once in the LXX (3 Kings xiv. 6) in 
reference to Ahijah, kal éyd eius dadorodos (mov) mpds oe oKAnpés. 
This is the more remarkable because the LXX uses drooréAAw almost 
to the exclusion of réuzw, and dmdéaToAos would have been expected as 
the correlative substantive, but dyyeAos seems to have been consistently 

*AréoroXos is equally rare in Josephus, but its one occurrence is 
important, for in Antig. xvii. 11. 1 Josephus speaks of Varus, the head 
of a delegation of Jews, as dréatoXos atbtov. 

In the New Testament the word appears at first to be widely used, 
but analysis suggests that it is a Pauline-Lucan word, or at least one 
which owed its general use to Pauline-Lucan influence. 

In Mark it is once used in describing the Twelve, whom according 
to Mark iii. 14 Jesus had chosen iva drooréAAy adtods Knpiooev Kai 
exerv eLovoiav exBddAXAew 7a Sarpdvia. When they return from this 
mission they are described in vi. 30 as of amwéatoAo.. The word 
obviously refers to the mission which had been ended by their return, 
not to any future offices in the Church ; it may be a description rather 
than a title. Mark, indeed—and it is one of the most valuable 

EE 5 


indications of its early date and general trustworthiness—has no- 

where any suggestion that Jesus contemplated the foundation of a 
‘Church,’ The ministry of Jesus, according to Mark, was a campaign 

(i.) against demons and disease, (ii.) to induce men to repent, that they 

might be worthy of the Kingdom which would come so soon. The 

Twelve are not an official class in a new society, but emissaries sent 

out by Jesus to deliver his message. 

_ In Matthew the word dmrdécroXos does not appear except in x, 2-5 in Matthew. 
the abbreviation of the Marcan account of the choice of the Twelve. 

In Luke it is found five times (Luke ix, 10, xi. 49, xvii. 5, xxii, 14, Luke. 
xxiv. 10), and it is frequently used in Acts and in the Pauline Epistles 
(twenty-five times, not counting the Pastoral Epistles). 

In John dwécroAos is only used once (John xiii. 16), where it is John. 
apparently a paraphrase of the saying given in Matt. x. 24. 

In the Apocalypse dwréaroAos is used three times. (i.) In ii, 2 of Apocalypse. 
‘those who call themselves apostles, and are not, where the meaning 
clearly is ‘Christian missionary’ as it is in the Didache. (ii.) In xviii. 

20, where apostles and prophets are joined together much as they are 
in the Didache. (iii.) In xxi. 14, where the ‘twelve apostles’ are the 
foundation-stones of the New Jerusalem, the Church. 

Thus we have the extremely interesting linguistic fact that the The origin 
Pauline-Lucan branch of Christian literature seems to have popularized Spain ig 
and given a technical meaning to a word which was otherwise scarcely 
used, except in a different sense, in the whole course of previous Greek 
literature, At the same time, though the popularity of the word is 
doubtless due to Pauline-Lucan influence, Josephus, the Apocalypse, 
and perhaps the single example of the word in Mark, forbid the 
hypothesis that its original is Pauline-Lucan. The rarity of the word 
in John and in Matthew shows that it can hardly be quite primitive, but 
it is very early, and its place of origin is uncertain. What was the place 
of which the usage affected Paul, Luke, and the Apocalypse ? 

Possibly dréaroXos was used in this sense in the Koine Greek, and 
there was perhaps an underground stream of popular usage connecting 
Herodotus and Luke. This, however, seems unlikely, and I am inclined 
to think that the sudden emergence of the word is one of those happy 
accidents which happen so frequently in the history of language. Mark, I 
think, correctly represents the fact that the Twelve, in consequence of their 
mission of preaching in Galilee, were called mn>w ; they had been ‘sent’? 
by Jesus, and they, or such of them as remained, held a position of prestige. 
How should that word be translated? dyyeAos was the LXX rendering, 
and is probably used in the Apocalypse of those who in Pauline-Lucan 
phraseology would be termed the ‘apostles’ of the churches (see Rev. i. 

20, ete.). But dyyeAos was coming more and more to mean ‘angel,’ and 
so another word was desirable, but why did Mark hit upon dadoroAos 
as the right word ? 

1 Professor Burkitt points out to me that it is worthy of note ‘‘that the best 
attested claim made about himself by Jesus is that he was one ‘sent.’ See 
Mark ix. 37, Luke iv. 18, Matt. xv. 24, John v. 38, etc.” 


The Jewish 

The Codex 

The Jewish 
Apostoli in 



It has been suggested, notably by Harnack in his Mission und 
Ausbreitung, ed. 4, pp. 340 ff., that the word was first adopted by Jews, 
but the evidence, though interesting, scarcely amounts to demonstration. 
The facts are as follows: 

After the destruction of Jerusalem, and the extinction of the 
high-priestly Sadducean families, the leadership of the Jews passed to 
the rabbinical Pharisaic families, and one of them—that of Hillel, 
to which Gamaliel belonged—was recognized by the Romans as the 
official head of the Jews. In Hebrew he was called ‘ Nasi,’ and in Greek 
sometimes ¢Ovdpxns, but oftener watpidpxns.1 The exact date at which 
this ‘ Patriarchate’ was instituted is unknown, but it existed from the 
second to the fourth century, when it was suppressed, and the leadership 
of Judaism tended to pass more and more to the Exilarch of Babylon, 
who was treated with great respect by the Persians. (For the very 
interesting details of the Exilarchate see S. Funk, Die Juden in 

From the Codex Theodosianus it appears that the ‘ Patriarch’ had official 
representatives who were entrusted especially with the bringing back 
of the awrum coronartum which the Romans sanctioned as a contribution 
from the Jews outside Palestine. These were called apostoli (superstitionts 
indignae est, ut archisynagogt sive presbytert Iudaeorwm vel quos tpst apostolos 
vocant, ete., Cod. Theod. xvi. 8. 14 [April 11, a.D. 399]), and in the 
twenty-fifth letter of Julian the Apostate (204 in the edition of Bidez 
and Cumont, p. 281) the contribution collected is probably called 
drootoXy, though it is possible that here, as in Epiphanius, the word 
means ‘the function of the Apostles.’ The text of the letter says ézi 
tréov 8 ipads ebwxeirAar BovAdspevos rdv ddeApdv “IovAoyv, tov aidect- 
poratov ratpidpynv, Tapyveca Kal tiv Aeyopevnv [evar] wap tpiv 
drootohivy KwAvOjvar kTA. But it should be noted that the authen- 
ticity of this letter is disputed. It is accepted by Juster, Les Juifs 
dans Vempire romain, vol. i. p. 159, but rejected by Bidez and Cumont, 
p. 279. 

The existence of these apostoli can be traced in the fourth century 
in Jerome, Eusebius, and Epiphanius : 

Jerome says in his commentary on Gal. i. 1 (Migne, P.L. xxvi. 311): 
“ Usque hodie a patriarchis Iudaeorum apostolos mitti, a quibus etiam tunc 
reor Galatas depravatos Legem observare coepisse, vel certe alios de Iudaeis 
credentibus in Christum perrexisse Galatiam, quit assererent Petrum quoque 
wpostolorum principem, et Jacobum fratrem Domini, Legis caeremonias 
custodire. Ad distinctionem ttaque eorum qui mittuntur ab hominibus, et sui, 
qui sit missus a Christo, tale sumpsit exordiwm: ‘Paulus apostolus, non 
ab hominibus, neque per hominem’ Apostolus autem, hoc est, ‘missus,’ 
Hebraeorum proprie vocabulum est, quod Silas [v.1. Silat] quoque sonat, cut 
a mittendo ‘misst’ nomen® impositum est.” 

1 Cf. G. F. Moore, Judaism, vol. iii. note 5. 
2 Silas (or Silai) is apparently a bad transliteration of the Hebrew mbur, or 
the Aramaic mw with transposition of the vowels. 


Eusebius, In Esaiam xviii. 1 (Migne, P.G. xxiv. 213), says’ AzoordéAovs Eusebius. 
8e eirére Kal viv €Oos exriv lovdaiors ovopdew todbs éyxixdia ypdppara 
Tapa TOV apxdvTwv adtav éeriKopt(opevors. 

Epiphanius, Panarion xxx. 4, gives us fuller information, and shows Epiphanius. 
that the apostoli were not merely collectors, but legates from the Patriarchs 
with extensive powers. The story is too long to quote in full, but it is 
worth reading. It concerns the adventures of one Joseph of Tiberias, 
a Jew, who when an ‘Apostle’ of the Jewish Patriarch in the time of 
Constantine had been a severe and unpopular disciplinarian. In the 
course of his travels he made friends with a bishop who lent him a copy 
of the Gospels. When the Jews discovered this they beat him and threw 
him into the river. He then became a Christian, and was given the 
rank of Comes by Constantine, with the privilege of building churches 
in Galilee. Later on he was a vigorous opponent of the Arians, and— 
according to his own account—when his wife died, married again, in 
order to avoid ordination. 

Joseph clearly made a great impression on Epiphanius, and his 
statement about the apostolt is eiot dé obrou pera TOV mar pidpxnv dmdaToAot 
Kaovpevor, mporedpevourr dé TO TaTpiépXy, Kal adv avT@ modAdKus 
kat €v vuKTi Kal é€v nuépa ouvexas Sidyovor Sid 7d ovpBovdrcverv kal 
dvapépewy adT@ TA KaTa TOV VOpov. 

Thus in the fourth century the envoys of the Jewish Patriarch were 
undoubtedly called daéaroAot. When and why did the custom begin of so 
calling them? Griitz (Geschichte der Juden, ed. 1, iv. pp. 345 ff.) thought 
that it began after the calamities of the third century, in the Patriarchate 
of Gamaliel IV. or of Judah III. More recent scholars (Harnack, 
Juster, and Monnier) think that it is far older, and goes back to the 
fall of Jerusalem.* 

Doubtless the institution of messengers is older than the fourth century, 
and it would have been natural to call them mw. The question is 
whether this word was translated into Greek as dmécroAos. For this 
there is no evidence. All the testimony which we have is Christian, 
and a Christian in the third century might naturally translate mw 

Still less is there evidence that similar envoys of the high priests The poll-tax. 
were so called before 70. At that time there was an authorized poll- 
tax on all Jews of two drachmae. The speech of Cicero Pro Flacco is the 
classical evidence that in the first century, when there was a senatus 
consultwm against the exportation of gold, an exception was noted in 
favour of the Jews. This tax was not collected by representatives of the 
high priests, but by delegates of the various settlements of the Diaspora. 
The chief description of this tax and its dispatch to Jerusalem is Philo, 
De spec. leg. i. 77 (Mang. ii. p. 224), Even if the aurwm coronartum be 
taken as the legitimate successor of the ‘didrachma’ of the earlier period, 
it is clear that it was collected in a different manner, and that the persons 

1 It is even argued that it may be traced to the Persian period. See 
‘Apostle’ in the Jewish Encyclopaedia, and F. Gavin’s ‘Shaliach and Apostolos’ 
in the Anglican Theological Review, January 1927. 



The wider 



‘sent’ with it came from the Diaspora, not from the high priests. Nor 
is there any evidence of the use of the word dwécroAos. But it is 
noteworthy that dréoroXos seems to be used in a somewhat similar sense 
of Epaphroditus in Philipp. ii, 25. 

' Thus there is no evidence that the word dréaroXos was borrowed 
from Jewish sources. More probably it was the Greek-speaking church 
of Antioch which hit on the idea of using the rare but natural word 
dréotoAos. If the word be Antiochian in origin the facts are easily 
explained. Paul—the earliest witness to its use—and. Luke are certainly 
closely connected with Antioch, and the occasional and rare use of 
the word in Mark, Matthew, and the Apocalypse is natural ; for even if 
none of these documents came from Antioch, it was so influential a centre 
of Christian propaganda that its vocabulary was sure to influence writers 
from other places. It is indeed interesting how far all the earliest Greek 
terminology may point to Antioch: Certainly there is a fair case for 
the view that from Antioch came not only dréaroAos but also xipios, 
éxxAnoia, and Xpwriavés. But drdoroAos, unlike xvpios, which is 
important for its connotation in Greek religion, and éxxAnoia, which is 
important for its connotation in Jewish religion, seems to have no history 
and no wide connotation. Of all the technical terms of the New 
Testament it is the most markedly and exclusively Christian. 

Two usages can be distinguished. (i.) In the Pauline Epistles 
améotoXos is used in the sense of a Christian missionary who has been 
commissioned to the service of the gospel. Paul himself claimed that his 
commission came from God and from Christ, but the form of expression 
used in Gal. i. 1 etc. suggests that he knew of apostles whose commission was 
from men. There is no implication that he regarded the Apostles as limited 
in number to twelve, and that he thought that an apostle need have seen 
the Lord is a rather rash conclusion? from 1 Cor, ix. 1. In the context of 
this passage St. Paul has been discussing the question of things offered to 
idols, and has said that he would rather never eat meat again than give 
offence to weaker brethren ; he then goes on, “ Am I not free? am I not 
an apostle? have I not seen Jesus our Lord? are not you my work in 
the Lord? If I am no apostle for others, at least Iam to you ; for you are 
in the Lord my seal of fellowship.” It is customary to regard this passage 
as the answer to an attack on Paul’s apostolate: indirectly it may be 
so, for the troubles in Corinth broke out soon afterwards; but directly 
and principally it has to do with the question of things offered to idols. 
It is a mistake to think that all the qualifications mentioned in ix. 1 ff. 
are intended to prove that he was an apostle. The main point is the 
argument that he, in spite of his privileges, prefers not to use them lest he 
should give offence, and that the Corinthians ought in the same way to 
consider the feelings of others in relation to things offered to idols. Only 
incidentally does he put in a parenthesis defending his apostolate. If 

1 This conclusion is due to reading into the Epistles the view found in 
Acts x. 41, that an apostle was one who had been an eye-witness to the risen 


this be so, the three clauses, “Am I not free? am I not an apostle? 
have I not seen Jesus our Lord ?” are three separate claims to distinction, 
and it is an exaggeration to say that Paul only regarded as ‘apostles’ 
those who had seen Jesus. 

There are also traces of this use of the word drécroXos in Acts. In In Acts. 
xiv. 4 and 14 Barnabas and Paul are described as drécroAo, but it is 
unnecessary to suppose, as is sometimes done, that this apostolate is 
thought to begin with the commission described in xiii. 1. (See also note 
on iv. 36.) 

As was stated above, this view of the apostolate is probably also In the 
preserved in the Didache, where dwécroXos seems to mean a Christian 2“ 
missionary and nothing more. This is often stated as though it were 
certain, but to do so overlooks the fictitious nature of the Didache and 
the fact that it is not intended by the writer to be a description of his own 
time (a date more uncertain than most writings on the subject suggest*), 
but a picture of the days when the disciples of Jesus were still alive. It 
is therefore intrinsically just possible that in Didache xi. 3 ‘apostle’ 
means one of the original body of the Twelve. The reason for doubting 
this is that, assuming, as we certainly ought, that the passage is intended 
as a picture of the first century, the writer thinks not merely that the 
Apostles may be unknown to those whom they visit, but even that they may 
be capable of bad conduct. Could he have thought this if ‘apostle’ means 
‘one of the Twelve’? It is therefore probable that the Didache really 
continues the Pauline tradition and uses drdorodXos in a general sense, 
not confining it to the Twelve. . 

(ii.) Over against this extended view is a more contracted one which The 
limits the Apostles to the Twelve. This is plain from a comparison of aie 
Acts i. 2 ff, i 17, i. 25 f., ete. Even if it be not clear in every place 
that ‘the Apostles’ means the Twelve, probably no one will doubt that 
this is in the mind of the editor—as distinct from his sources—and that 
such a verse as Acts xiv. 14 represents the different usage of a source 
employed by the editor, not his own opinion. The limitation of ‘ apostle’ 
to the Twelve became general in the later Church, though Eusebius and 
others admit that the Seventy of Luke had a claim to the title of apostle, and 
explain the references to Barnabas and others as apostles by the hypothesis 
that they belonged to the Seventy. (Cf. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. i. 12.) 

These facts suggest that originally Jesus chose twelve representatives Conclusion. 
who were naturally called ‘Shaliach’ and often referred to as ‘the 
Twelve.’ Later on, perhaps before or perhaps after the Resurrection, 
other disciples were recognized as ‘Shaliach’ and in Greek were called 
‘Apostles,’ Still later this second stage was forgotten and the word 

1 I have ventured to reprint this passage from The Earlier Epistles of 
St. Paul, p. 229. 

2 See especially J. A. Robinson, Barnabas, Hermas, and the Didache, which 
shows very conclusively that it is—to say the least—extremely rash to date the 
Didache in the first century. For myself, I think that the Didache in its present 
form is later than Hermas. 

Apostles as 

As adminis- 

Acts i.-v. 


‘apostle’ was usually narrowed in meaning so as to be synonymous with 
‘the Twelve.’ 

4, The Apostles in Acts 

According to the opening verses of Acts Jesus had chosen the Apostles 
during his ministry (in the Western text ‘to preach the gospel’), and in 
his parting words before the Ascension commissioned them to be ‘his 
witnesses’ throughout the world. This strikes one of the two primary 
notes found in Acts as to the function of the Apostles. 

First, they were witnesses who were able to say ‘what we have seen 
with our eyes,’ and thus deliver authoritatively the ‘message about Jesus.’ 
The exercise of this function is illustrated in every speech of Peter in 
Acts. Obviously the ability to give this witness was not necessarily 
limited to the ‘Twelve,’ but equally clearly the meaning of the writer 
is that only the Twelve received the commission, and probably that is 
why Paul’s vision of the risen Jesus, and the commission which he 
received, are so emphasized at the beginning of the Pauline section of 

Equally important for the historian is the second great function of 
the Apostles—to govern and administer the Church. The Church at 
the beginning consisted of 120 persons (Acts i. 15), who were waiting in 
Jerusalem for the speedy coming of the End. But as the End was delayed 
the problem of their common life became more and more important, and 
to regulate it was the work of the Twelve, of whom Peter is generally 
the leader and spokesman. The exact nature and limits of this work 
are nowhere defined, but a reasonably clear picture of facts and of problems 
can be formed by considering the following passages. 

(i.) Acts i. 15 ff. At the first meeting of the ‘brethren’ in Jerusalem 
after the Ascension Peter proposed that one of them should be elected to 
take the place of the traitor Judas. The appointment was made by the 
community, but on the motion of Peter, and it obviously implies that 
being reckoned among the Twelve was a position of dignity and power. 
The exact extent to which the making of the appointment was divided 
between Peter and the community depends upon the text. According to 
the Neutral text the community nominated two and then cast lots 
between them : according to the Western text Peter nominated two and 
the community either voted or cast lots between his two nominees. 
Which is the right text? It does not seem to be a case of accidental 
variation, and the Western text is remarkably like some forms of later 
ecclesiastical elections. Did the Western text of Acts produce the 
ecclesiastical organization, or did the ecclesiastical organization modify the 
text? It is perhaps important to notice (a) that Peter and the Twelve 
took this position of leadership before the day of Pentecost, and therefore 
it was not due to the possession of the Spirit ; (0) that obviously the 
Twelve did not exhaust the number of those who were eligible to serve 
as ‘witnesses’ but had not been commissioned to serve by Jesus. 

(ii.) Acts ii. 1 ff. On the day of Pentecost, whether it was they only 
or the whole community which received the Spirit, it was in any case 


Peter, acting as spokesman of the Twelve, who converted three thousand 
of the crowd who were listening. 

(iii.) Acts i. 41 ff, iv. 32 ff, vi. 1 ff. The Apostles appear in these 
verses as the recipients and distributors of charity, until the responsibility 
becomes more than they can manage without help. The result was that 
the Seven were appointed. By whom? _ Is it an accident that once more 
there are textual variants at the critical point? According to the Codex 
Vaticanus Peter said, “It is not good for us to leave the word of God 
to serve tables. Let us choose, brethren, seven men from among you. ... 
But we ourselves will attend to prayer and the service of the Lord. And 
the proposal was accepted by all the congregation (singular) and they 
chose Stephen . . . and they stood them before the Apostles and they 
prayed and laid hands on them.” The variation of ‘we’ and ‘you’ and 
‘they’ is extraordinarily ambiguous. It clearly means that the Seven 
were ordained by the Apostles. Does it mean that they were selected by 
the Apostles or by the community? (See note ad loc.) The Western 
text has no doubt about the matter and rewrites the passage to make it 
clear that the Seven were selected by the congregation and ordained by 
the Apostles. Once more, what is the relation between the history of the 
text and the history of ecclesiastical institutions ? 

In these three passages it is clear that the Apostles are the Twelve, Summary of 
that Peter is their head, and that the government of the Church is in inical 
their hands. There is no suggestion that they conferred the gift of the 
Spirit ; all that Peter says is that if others repent and are baptized in 
the name of Jesus Christ they will receive the same gift. It is quite 
possible (see Vol. I. pp. 339 f.) that the reference to baptism is editorial ; 
but in any case there is a remarkable absence of any reference to Apostolic 
mediation as necessary for the gift of the Spirit. 

(iv.) Acts viii. 5 ff. This is the story of Philip’s work in Samaria : Philip's 
how he converted many by his preaching about ‘the Kingdom of God ¥°™ 
and the name of Jesus Christ,’ so that ‘they were baptized, both men 
and women.’ The narrative continues: “ When the Apostles in Jerusalem 
heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God they sent to them 
Peter and John, who went down and prayed for them that they might 
receive Holy Spirit. For it had not yet fallen on any of them, but they 
had merely been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they 
laid hands on them and they began to receive Holy Spirit.” It seems 
clear from this passage that its writer believed that the Apostles and no 
one else had the power of conferring the Holy Spirit, and that they did 
so not by baptism but by the laying on of hands. Simon Magus, the 
most prominent of Philip’s converts, perceived that the Apostles had the 
power of conferring the Holy Spirit by the imposition of their hands and 
tried to bribe them to give him the same power that they had. The 
incident is very significant. Simon was not trying to purchase the gift 
of the Spirit, which the Apostles had apparently already given, but the 

1 It would also follow that the author did not think that the gift of the 
Holy Spirit was necessary to salvation, for, if it had been, what would have been 
the point of the conversion and baptism of the Samaritans by Philip ? 


power to confer it. Obviously, according to the author of this section, 
not everyone who had received the Spirit was able to impart it. It is to 
be noted that the story does not state that Peter could not confer the gift 
of imparting the Spirit, but only that he did not choose to do so in the 
case of Simon Magus. It is a pity that we cannot say with certainty 
whether this episode expounds the opinion of Luke, or of the source 
which he was using. (See Vol. I. pp. 338 ff.) 

This passage belongs to the same class as the preceding so far as the 
identification of the Apostles with the Twelve is concerned, but it differs 
by the great emphasis it puts on the necessity of Apostolic mediation in 
addition to baptism for the gift of the Spirit. 

Paul's con- (v.) Acts ix. 1 ff The story of Paul’s conversion is not so clear as 

version might be wished, but it is obvious that the writer, like Paul himself, 
regards the vision on the road to Damascus as Paul’s call to be an Apostle, 
and ix. 27 is probably intended as the recognition by the Apostles that 
Paul is one of their number. 

Peter's (vi.) Acts x. 34 ff. Peter’s speech in Caesarea. This is important 

epeech in because in verse 41 is the clearest explanation that the Apostles (jjuiv) 
were the witnesses, chosen before of God, who ate and drank? with Jesus 
after the Resurrection. 

Antioch. (vii.) Acts xi. 19 ff. The foundations of the Church at Antioch, This 
was the work of unknown followers of Stephen who had preached to 
Gentiles at Antioch. Just as Peter and John were sent to Samaria 
to investigate the work of Philip, Barnabas was sent to investigate the 
state of affairs in Antioch. He approved of what had been done and 
summoned Paul to help him. The interesting points in the narrative 
for the present purpose are: (a) Barnabas was not one of the Twelve ; but 
both here and elsewhere he is ranked as an Apostle. This is one of the 
clearest examples of the wider meaning of ‘ Apostle’ making itself visible 
(see above, p. 402). (6) Paul is definitely put into a position of sub- 
ordination to Barnabas, and comes to help him in territory which was 
not his own. Rom. xv. 20 is a curious commentary on this fact. Paul 
says, “I have striven to preach the gospel where Christ was not named, 
lest I should build on another man’s foundation.” Did he adopt this 
policy because his co-operation with Barnabas had proved unsatisfactory ? 
However this may be, it is clear that to the writer of Acts Barnabas’ 
mission to Antioch represents apostolic control over a church founded by 
those who were not Apostles. Moreover, both here and in the story of © 
Philip it is implied that in some sense the Christians in Jerusalem 
exercised an authoritative supervision over other communities. 

The (viii.) Acts xv. 1 ff. Although the story of Paul’s journeys is 

Apostolic reached in chap. xiii, the first important episode for the present purpose 

1 For the details of this episode and the parallel narratives in xxii. 3 ff. and 
xxvi. 9 ff. see Addit. Note 15. 

2 Obviously Paul did not really belong in this category, but he was a witness, 
the last (as he says himself), of the risen Lord. Does ‘eating and drinking’ 
belong to the original definition? Paul would surely not have accepted it, and 
it is probably the anti-Docetic amplification of the editor of Acts. 


is the meeting of the Church in Jerusalem, described in chap. xv., which 
seems to read as though Paul and Barnabas recognized the authority of 
that body. Once more the question of text enters into the problem. 
The Neutral text is very obscure, but it is plain in the Western text 
that representatives of the Church in Jerusalem came down to Antioch 
and summoned Paul and Barnabas, those dangerous innovators, to go up 
and answer for themselves before the Apostles. It is quite possible 
that here the Western text has at least correctly interpreted Luke’s 
meaning (see note ad loc.) In the event it is true that Peter sides with 
Paul and Barnabas, and James the brother of the Lord sums up in their 
favour. But it is clear that the tribunal was composed of the Apostles 
and Elders, and Paul and Barnabas were to some extent on trial. 

Who were the Elders, and what was the position of James is nowhere 
definitely stated, but the position of James? is clear not only in Acts xv., 
but also in Galatians i. and ii. and in Acts xxi. He is the leader of the 
Church in Jerusalem. Paul puts him before Peter and John (Gal. ii. 9), 
and represents Peter’s backsliding in Antioch as due to the influence 
of James’s representatives. In Acts he decides (¢yw xpivw, xv. 19) the 
question discussed at the Council, and when Paul comes to Jerusalem 
for the last time (xxi. 18) it is James who appears as the undoubted 
head of the Christian community. 

Was he an ‘ Apostle’? According to Paul he certainly was, for the 
phrase in Gal, i. 19 (érepov 5¢ Tov droordAwy ovK eidov ei pi) "Idéxwfov) 
can scarcely mean anything except that James was an Apostle. But he 
was not one according to Acts, which normally regards ‘ Apostle’ as 
synonymous with ‘the Twelve,’ 

K. Holl, in his brilliant Der Kirchenbegriff des Paulus,? has suggested kK. Holl. 
that in 1 Cor, xv. 5 ff. may be found a solution of the difference between 
the Epistles and Acts. Paul here says that the risen Lord appeared to 
Peter, then to the Twelve, then to five hundred brethren, then to James, 
and then to all the Apostles. Holl thinks that the implication is that 
after he had seen the risen Lord James became an ‘ Apostle,’ so that ‘all 
the Apostles’ means ‘the Twelve and James,’ and that it was by virtue 
of his relationship to Jesus that he was recognized as the head of the 
community. It is, however, obvious that this suggestive combination 
reads into Paul’s words much more than is really stated. All that is 
certain is that Paul differentiates between the Twelve and the Apostles. 
He probably implies that James and the Twelve all belong to the larger 
group of Apostles, but not that ‘the Twelve and James’ form the whole 
of that larger group. Moreover, Holl’s theory scarcely does justice to the 
description of Andronicus and Junias in Rom. xvi. 7 as érionpor év Tots 

1 The relationship of James to Jesus has been so fully discussed in Ropes’ 
commentary on the Epistle of James, as well as in Lightfoot’s commentary on 
Galatians, that it is unnecessary to deal with it here; and to consider the 
tradition as to his death preserved in Hegesippus-Eusebius belongs rather to a 
treatment of the Church in Jerusalem. 

2 Gesammelte Aufsitee zur Kirchengeschichte, ii. pp. 44 ff. (reprinted from 
the Sitzwngsberichte of the Berlin Academy for 1921). 


Paul in 


amrootoAous, Which most naturally implies that Andronicus and Junias 
were distinguished members of the Apostolic class, not that they were 
regarded as famous by the Apostles. But even if this be doubted it 
cannot be denied that in 1 Cor. ix. 5 f. Paul includes Barnabas and the 
Brethren of the Lord among the Apostles. He says: “ Have I no right 
to take about a Christian wife like the other Apostles, the Brethren of 
the Lord, and Kephas? Or have only Barnabas and myself no right to 
give up work?” It is impossible to argue satisfactorily that the Brethren 
of the Lord are regarded as a class separate from the Apostles without 
admitting that Kephas also was not an Apostle, and to most minds this 
is a reductio ad absurdum. 

Therefore Holl’s theory, so far as it limits the meaning of ‘ Apostle’ 
to ‘the Twelve and James,’ is probably wrong; but it is certainly right 
in emphasizing James’s position of primacy in Jerusalem and his rank as 
an Apostle. 

The ‘ Presbyters’ are a more difficult problem. The word obviously 
corresponds to the zegenim of Judaism, a college of men who were at the 
head of the community. In the church at Jerusalem who can these 
have been except the Apostles? In the absence of evidence it is only 
possible to guess, but it is an attractive hypothesis that as the function 
of the Apostles in Jerusalem gradually changed there was a tendency to 
call them the zegenim rather than the sheluchim, and this resulted in 
their being called rpeoBirepor in Greek. 

An alternative guess would be that the ‘Presbyters’ were what 
remained of the ‘Seven.’ Ecclesiastical tradition, it is true, calls them 
‘ Deacons,’ but Acts does not do so; it merely says that they had the 
Siaxovia of administering charity. If, as may be the case, all the 
original apostles except James left Jerusalem and became missionaries, 
the ‘Seven’ would be the natural persons to be the zeqenim of the com- 
munity. It is by no means improbable that the disturbance in the 
Church described in chapter vi. produced a more complete reorganization 
than Luke has thought fit to describe. 

Moreover, it is not inconceivable that the Seven belonged to the circle 
of the Apostles—as distinct from the Twelve—and that (as is suggested 
above) mpeoPirepor merely indicates a tendency to describe the whole of 
this circle by their function in the Church. James had obviously become 
their president. Was he called the érioxoros? Possibly ; but there 
is considerable force in the contention that originally érioKomos was 
synonymous with zpeoPirepos. It would be going too far afield to 
discuss this difficult point, but perhaps attention may be drawn to the 
fact that the earliest suggestion that émrioKxomos was a Christian title is 
found in Gal. ii. 4 where xatacxorjoat is apparently a deliberate play 
of words on érurkorjoat, comparable to the use made in Philipp. iii, 2 ff. 
of kararopy and wepitopuy,! and the context shows that Paul held that 
in Jerusalem there was more than one of these xatéoKoro.-€ricKkorot. 

(ix.) Acts xix. 1 ff. This is an important but disconcerting episode, 

1 See Holl, op. cit. 


which, if taken in its natural sense, seems to contradict the implications 
of the story in chap. viii. Paul reached Ephesus from the East and 
found a number of ‘disciples,’ that is, Christians. He asked whether 
they had received the Spirit after their conversion (again implying that 
not all Christians had the Spirit, cf. above, p. 53, note), and when he 
found that they had not done so he inquired into the nature of the baptism 
which they had received. If only the Apostles had the power to confer 
the Holy Spirit, why is Paul surprised to find that the people in Ephesus 
had not received it? Did he think at first, what we are not told, that it 
was one of the Apostles who had baptized them? The implication of 
the narrative is that it was Apollos, or some wholly anonymous mission- 
ary, and the fact that it turned out to have been only ‘John’s baptism’ and 
not a baptism in the name of the Lord Jesus makes it almost impossible 
that it could have been done by one of the Apostles. But if so, we are 
forced to consider the possibility that Paul did not consider the conferring 
of the Spirit as the exclusive prerogative of the Apostles (see further for 
the bearing of this on Baptism, Addit. Note 11). 

(x.) Acts xx. 18 ff. In his speech to the rpeoPirepo.4 of Ephesus Paul’s 
Paul says that the Holy Spirit has made them éréoxoros to ‘shepherd $pacen.” 
the church of God.’ Presumably he had appointed them himself, and 
this identification of his own actions with those of the Holy Spirit is 
entirely in keeping with the formula adopted at the council of Jerusalem 
(‘it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us’) which has since served 
as the model of correct ecclesiastical idiom. It is unfortunate that the 
story gives no hint as to the theory of succession which is involved, or 
the exact function of a rpeoPirepos-erioKoros, but it is clearly leading 
up by inevitable sequence to the famous utterance of the Church of Rome 
in the first epistle of Clement, written probably only a few years later 
than Acts, which still remains a perfect commentary on the theory of 
ecclesiastical government implied in Acts: ‘* The Christ therefore is from 
God and the Apostles from the Christ ... they went forth filled with 
the Holy Spirit, preaching the good news that the Kingdom of God was 
about to come. They preached from district to district and from city to 
city, and appointed their first converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be 
érioxorot and dudkovor of the future believers. . .. Our Apostles also 
knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife for the 
name of the éricxo77. For this cause therefore, since they had received 
perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been 
mentioned, and afterwards added the codicil that if they should fall asleep 
other approved men should succeed to their ministry.”* An apostolic 

1 IT have used the Greek for éricxoros, rpecBirepos, and didxovos to avoid the 
necessity of choosing a rendering which must inevitably assume an answer to 
one of the difficult questions—are these words descriptive of functions or the 
titles of offices ? 

2 1 Clement xlii. 2-4 and xliv. 1-2. It should be noted that in the next 
paragraph Clement refers to these éricxoro: and didxovos as mpecBirepo. If 
these words were technical the vocabulary to which they belong was still 
somewhat fluid. ; 

Paul and 
James in 


and local 


ministry, sanctioned by the Holy Spirit, is almost as clearly the back- 
ground of Acts as it is of Clement. The only difference, due to the 
single generation or less which intervenes between Luke and Clement, 
is that Acts emphasizes the divine prerogative of the Apostles, Clement 
of their successors, 

(xi.) Acts xxi. 18 ff. The last episode in Acts which throws any 
light on the Apostles and the organization of the Church is Paul’s return 
to Jerusalem in chap. xxi. The remarkable thing about the Apostles in 
this story is their absence. Paul is met by James and the rpeoPBirepor : 
there is no mention of any Apostle in Jerusalem. Had they all gone to 
the mission field, or is it merely that Luke is using another name to 
describe them, partly because the custom—either in fact or in his 
source—had changed, partly because he was influenced by his theory 
that ‘the Apostles’ means ‘the Twelve’ ? 

It is obvious that in these passages we have a series of glimpses into 
a complex of changing circumstances and rapidly developing terminology ; 
but in any attempt to trace the course of this evolution the one thing 
certain is that certainty cannot be attained. The. following seems the 
most probable summary. The Twelve were appointed by Jesus in the 
way described in the gospel of Mark. At least some of the Twelve 
came to Jerusalem after the death of Jesus and preached that he was 
the Messiah, risen from the dead and destined to come again on the 
clouds of Heaven. They became leaders in the Church in Jerusalem, 
but in view of the evidence of the Pauline Epistles it seems probable | 
that the Twelve were not a closed corporation governing the Church, as 
Luke (or the source which he uses in chapters i.-v.) would suggest, but 
that the chief position was held by a wider circle known as the Apostles. 
They were so called because they had been sent by Jesus, but in relation 
to the rapidly growing Christian community in Jerusalem they fulfilled 
the function of the Elders in the Jewish Council. It is therefore not 
strange if those of them who stayed in Jerusalem came to be called 
Elders rather than Apostles. At the beginning Peter was the chief of 
the Apostles in Jerusalem, but when he became more and more a 
travelling missionary his place was taken by James the brother of the 
Lord, so that in A.D. 45 (the approximate date of the Apostolic Council) 
James was the head of the Church in Jerusalem in spite of Peter's 
presence, and he is given the first place not only in Acts but also in the 
Epistle to the Galatians. How Peter’s original supremacy, testified to 
not only by Acts i-v. but also by Gal. i. 18, passed into the hands of 
James is, and will remain, an insoluble problem, because Luke has told 
us nothing about it. 

A further problem, which it is easier to state than to solve, is the 
relation of the spiritual supremacy of the Apostles to that of the local 
churches, There is much to be said for Holl’s view that at the beginning 
Jerusalem claimed a certain power over all the other churches, and that 
Paul, for the moment at least, succeeded in asserting the supremacy of 
spiritual rank over the authority of any local centre, Whatever doubts 


may be entertained about the authenticity of the later epistles of Paul, 
it is certain that their emphasis on the Church as distinct from the 
churches is a natural and legitimate evolution of Pauline thought. The 
fall of Jerusalem and the influence of Paul combined to render the 
position of James of secondary importance in the history of the Church, 
and in ecclesiastical tradition it is Peter and Paul, the two great mis- 
sionaries, not James, who are the chief of the Apostles. If in course 
of time Rome and Constantinople developed what seem to us local pre- 
tensions, more akin to the claims of James than of Paul, this was only 
because both the old Rome and the new Rome claimed to be more than 
‘localities ’—they were ‘the common superior of nations,’ 

By Henry J. CapBURY 

The word Hellenist, like its derivatives or cognates, Hellenistic and The word 
Hellenism, is so familiar and well established that no question seems Hellenist. 
necessary about it. Nevertheless‘ EAAnvir77s is not a common word in the 
Greek of the age that we call Hellenistic, and its first occurrences do not 
testify without ambiguity to the generally accepted definition: ‘‘ A Hellenist 
is a Greek-speaking foreigner, specifically a Greek-speaking Jew.” 

In post-Nicene times the word is used of heathen or pagans, in contrast In post- 
mainly with Christians.! The passages listed by Sophocles in his Lexicon are Nicpn’. 
Julian, ed. Spanheim 430 p (= Letter 49, derived not from the mss. of Julian. 
Julian but from Sozomen, H.H#. v. 16; cf. Migne, P.G. xvii. 1264 B) 
didacke Sé kal cvverpéperv Tors ‘HAAnVioTas eis TAS TOLAtTas AecToUpyias 
(ie. such charitable support as the Jews and Galileans practise) ; 
Philostorgius, Migne, P.G. xv. 587 B eis appyta te Kat adijyynta a87 Philo- 
karéornce [sc. lovAvavds] rovs Xpurriavovs, ravraxod Tov “EAAnviardy Storeius: 
mdgas aikias Kai kawvas Bacdvous Kal muxpotdatous Oavarous éraydovTwv 
adtois ; ibid. 541 a tov‘ EAAnuotov 74 aroretata Kata TOV Xpwrtiavov 
TavTaXov Tadapwpevwv ktArA.; Sozomen, H.E. iii. 17 (Migne, P.G. Ixvii. Sozomen. 
1093 B) %) Apnoea (i.e. Christianity) . . . €Ojpa Kati rpds éavTiv peTHye 
ths “EAAnvixns tepOpeias tots “EXAnuotds; ibid. vii. 15 (1456 a) 
Aeyerar S€ tov epi TotTwv ypadévtwv Tapa Baorréws eis TO Kowvdv 
dvayvorbevrwv peya dvaBonra: Xpurtiavorts, cadre evOds ex rpoowpiwv 
év aitia tovs “EAAnvotas éroveito. But before Julian, Philostorgius, 
and Sozomen, who use it thus of pagans or champions of Hellenic culture, 

I know of no instance of the word outside of the Book of Acts and 

1 In the same era a still commoner term for pagan and heathen was 
E\Anves. See A. D. Nock, Sallustius concerning the Gods, 1926, p. xlvii. note 43. 
To his examples many more could be added, including some in the very con- 
text of the instances of ‘EAAnnorai quoted here. The use of this word by 
Christians goes back to Jewish usage and perhaps ultimately to the anti- 
Hellenic prejudice of the Maccabean struggle. 


Acts vi. 1. 


passages dependent on it. So-called Hellenists like Philo of Alexandria, 
Paul of Tarsus, and Josephus do not use it. We may therefore con- 
fine ourselves to a study of the two or three passages in Acts, trying to 
arrive at the meaning of “‘EAAnvior7s from its use in these passages, their 
context, their early translation and interpretation, as well as—or even, 
rather than—from the etymology of the word. 

The word does not come from “EXAnv- directly by adding -urr7js but 
is rather to be derived from the verb“EAAnvifw by the addition of the usual 
termination for the nomen actoris, -rns. Verbs in -i¢w based on racial or 
national names mean to ape the manners of, to be an enthusiast for the 
cause or culture of, like Ileprifw, Mydifw, 2vxeAifw. But I do not find that 
they always form nouns in -vorys. We have of course ’Atrixifw and 
*Artixuotys.2 We have also nouns in -wr7s without corresponding verbs 
in -i¢w, but of similar meaning to our endings-phile- man, iac in Anglophile 
and Anglomaniac. Etymologically ‘EAA7nvicr7s should therefore mean, like 
“EAAnvifw, anyone who practises Greek ways—whether a Greek himself or 
a foreigner.* That such endings are not always causative is quite evident 
from their usage. Nor are they limited to outsiders. Finally we should 
observe that they have no special reference to language. The adverbial 
ending -.oré does refer to language, e.g. “EAAnviori, ‘in Greek,’ but it is 
independent of -vr77s, though of course popular etymology might come to 
connect the two. With this brief etymological preface we may now turn 
to the New Testament instances of “EAAnvurris. 

The facts about these instances are familiar to students of Acts. The 
first is in vi. 1: év b€ Tais 7pepats Tavras tn Ovvovrwv Tov pabntov 
eyevero yoyyvapos TOV ‘EXAnvicrav mos TOUS “EBpaiovs, é OTe TapeDew- 
potvrTo év TH Suaxovig TH KaOnpepivy at xjpar adrov. 

This passage is the foundation of the belief that the word Hellenist 
means a Greek-speaking Jew. The scene is the early church in Jerusalem. 
Both parties are of course Christians. The author does not say this, but it is 
obvious from the context. Further, both are commonly regarded as also 
Jewish ; but the author does not say this, and it is not so evident from the 
context. The word ‘Efpaio. used here only in Acts is thought to mean 
‘ Semitic-speaking Jews,’ and “EAAnvwrai therefore ‘ Greek-speaking 
Jews.’ While the inclusive word for Jews is Iovdaior, used elsewhere in 
contrast with Gentiles who may be called “EAAnves as well as €Ovn, this 
passage seems to divide the lovdaiot into two linguistic subdivisions : 
‘ Hebrews,’ who spoke Aramaic, and ‘Grecians,’ as the A.V. translated 

1 A Jewish schismatic sect is called by Justin, Dial. 80. 4, “EXAnvavoi, a 
unique word. The ending is not irregular, however. Cf. Christian, etc., and see 
p- 130. In the same passage are named other sects in -cor7js, yerioral, weporai. 

2 "Iovdaiorjs, Judaizer, from "Iovdaitw (Paul, Josephus, LXX), occurs in 
Adamantius 17848. Of course the participle of the verb took the place of the 
noun as "Iwdvyys 6 Barriftwy alternates in Mark with “Iwdvyns 6 Bamrioris. 
The forms in -icués also often occur more frequently than those in -.or7s. 
Cf. ‘Iovéacoués in 2 Macc., Paul, Ignatius, and ‘E\Anvicpuds in 2 Macc. 

3 For the proper etymological use of ‘E\Ayvoral see Zahn, Introduction to 
the New Testament, § 2. note 21. 


‘EAAnviortai, who spoke Greek. Such at least has been the universal 

There is at first sight much to commend this interpretation. (i.) The Luke and 
author of Acts is elsewhere sensitive to the matter of language.t At the *"8"*5* 
beginning of the book his narrative of Pentecost is a striking instance ; he 
emphasizes the fact that Paul did not catch the Lycaonian vernacular of 
his sudden admirers at Lystra ? (xiv. 11), that he was not to be confused 
with an Egyptian who could not speak in Greek (EAAnvicri xxi. 37) to 
the military tribune Claudius Lysias, that at Jerusalem he spoke to the 
mob at the castle of Antonia t7 “EPBpaids diadéxrw (ie. in Aramaic 
xxii. 2), and that even the same language explains the Semitic form 
‘Saoul’ by which the divine voice called him at his conversion near 
Damascus (xxvi. 14). The writer also omits, or translates into Greek, 
the Roman or Semitic words that appear in his sources, or else apologizes 
for the foreign word if he retains it.2 It would be natural that such 
a historian should realize the existence of two linguistic groups in 
Jewry and the early emergence of a Greek-speaking Christianity even 
in Jerusalem. 

(ii.) Furthermore, the position of the passage in Acts is usually thought The exegesis 
to forbid the view that these converts to the gospel were purely Gentile. 04°° 
It is thought that the innovation of taking Gentiles into the church would 
be marked more explicitly, as it is later at Caesarea and Antioch. The 
complaining party were Jews—Jews of the diaspora, who, though they 
were not few in Jerusalem and in the church of Jerusalem, were over- 
shadowed by the Palestinian party to which the Twelve as Galileans 
naturally belonged. The committee of Seven chosen, as the sequel tells us, 
to remedy the difficulty all bear Greek names. One of them is called 
a proselyte of Antioch ; another is at once involved in fatal controversy 
with Jews of the Synagogue of the Libertines. It is natural to suppose that 
all the Seven were ‘ Hellenists’ and that Stephen’s opponents were of the 
same class. 

1 Tt should be observed, however, that in none of its three occurrences does 
the context of ‘EAAnvioral suggest any difference or difficulty of language. 

2 The present editors have increasingly come to suspect that elsewhere in 
Acts geographical names like Lycaonia (xiv. 6, cf. 11) and the much discussed 
Ppvyia and Tadarixh xwpa indicate linguistic rather than political areas. 
Surely the traveller more readily observes the frontiers of language than those 
of race or government. For the perseverance of local languages in Asia Minor 
see Additional Note 18. 

3 See my Style and Literary Method of Luke, pp. 154 ff. In the evidence for 
Luke’s interest in languages we can scarcely include the words about the in- 
scription on the cross in Luke xxiii. 38 ypdupaocw éddnvikols (kal) pwyarkors (Kal) 
éBpacxoits. They are omitted by a few good and ancient textual authorities and 
are under suspicion of being a harmonizing scribal addition based on John 
xix. 20. And it is Matthew xxvi. 73 who changes the taunt to Peter in Mark 
xiv. 70 from TadcAaios ef to 7 Aadid cov SHAdv ce Toe?. One may doubt, 
however, whether \adi¢, means ‘the Galilean accent,’ as Zahn, Introd. to N.T7'. 
§ 1 note 13, and others have held. Cf. John viii. 43. 


The names 
of the Seven. 


The use of 


Nevertheless to this common understanding of the passage and of the 
term Hellenist some weighty objections can be raised. 

(i.) The Greek names of the Seven do not limit the bearers to Jews of 
the diaspora. They could have been borne, on the one hand by Palestinian 
Jews,! who must often have been partly bilingual,? or on the other hand 
by non-Jews. 

(ii.) It is not clear how the choice of seven members of one party would 
satisfactorily provide for the poor widows of both parties, nor why men 
chosen to allow the Twelve to preach rather than to ‘serve tables’ appear 
later only as preachers and evangelists. The connexion beween the 
choice of the Seven and the controversy of Stephen is not close, and it is 
not stated that the foreigners at the synagogue of the Libertini should be 
called Hellenists. The loose connexions of an obscure passage are pressed 
too hard when all these deductions are drawn from them.* 

(iii.) The word “EGpaio. is not commonly used elsewhere in a strictly 
linguistic sense. It means ‘ Jewish,’ and when contrasted, as it often is, 
with Gentiles it may, of course, include a difference of language. I know 
no evidence of its use to describe a part or subdivision of Judaism. Paul 
calls himself ‘a Hebrew’ (2 Cor. xi. 22) or a Hebrew from Hebrews (‘iBpaios 
e€‘EBpaiwv Phil. iii. 5), and the fact that he also calls himself in one passage 
an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, and in the other of the stock of Israel, 
has been forcibly explained in the light of the passage in Acts as implying 
that he was giving a narrower and linguistic description of his Jewish pre- 
rogatives by emphasizing that he and even his ancestors were not really of 
the Greek-speaking type so often found in the Dispersion, but were brought 
up in the Semitic speech of the Palestinian Jews and primitive Christians.* 

1 See notes on Acts i. 23 and vi. 5. 

2 J. Weiss, Urchristentum, pp. 119 f., believes that not only Galilee but a large 
part of Jerusalem also was bilingual in New Testament times. On Galilee see 
G. Dalman, Jesus-Jeshua, Eng. Trans., 1929, pp. 5 f. 

3 The assumptions are illustrated in W. L. Knox, St. Paul and the Church 
of Jerusalem. Those who accept the theory of.‘ panel markers’ (see Addit. 
Note 31 and Vol. II. p. 176) may be reminded that one of them occurs at vi. 7 
dividing the choice of the Seven from the dispute of Stephen. 

4 A somewhat different suggestion is that ‘ESpato is geographical, of Jews 

- born in Palestine. This may possibly be implied by Jerome, Commentary 

on Philemon, vs. 23, where Paul’s birth at Gischala rather than at Tarsus is 
brought into connexion with his claim to be'ESpaios. One can see that birth 
in Palestine might be a less unintelligible ground for boasting than the ability 
to use Aramaic. The tribe of Benjamin apparently claimed as a reason for 
prestige that their ancestor alone among the twelve patriarchs was born in 
Palestine. Jews of the dispersion, whether at Rome,. Corinth, Tarsus, or even 
at Jerusalem, might distinguish from members of the older dispersion the more 
recent Jewish emigrants from Palestine, including those whose exile dated from 
the Roman conquests of Pompey (cf. note on Acts xxii. 28), or of Vespasian. 
This view of a difference between Aramaic- and Greek-speaking Jews within the 
dispersion is now espoused by Deissmann in a note in Nik. Miiller’s posthumous 
work, Die Inschriften der jiidischen Katakombe am Monteverde zu Rom, 1919, 


But in the light of its general currency this special meaning for ‘E@patox 
is improbable and less likely than one more nearly synonymous with Jew 
or Israelite. 

Outside the New Testament there is little evidence of “E@paios meaning 
a Jew speaking “EGpaiori.! Philo uses it of Hebrew proper names in 
contrast to their Greek interpretation. Josephus uses it of the Jews in 
general, and so do many Gentile writers of his time.* The name occurs in 

p. 24; in Licht vom Osten‘, 1923, pp. 12f. note (Eng. Trans.?, 1927, p. 16 note); 
Paulus*, 1925, p. 71 note 7 (Eng. Trans.?, 1926, p. 90 note 5). Contrast his 
earlier editions, German and English, of these works. 

1 This adverb, like ‘Ed\nviori and others in -iorl, is linguistic. The word 
does not usually distinguish Aramaic from Hebrew, but we may assume it 
always means Aramaic in New Testament times. The argument of the present 
note is not concerned to distinguish the earlier from the later Semitic speech of 
the Jews, but is directed against the inference that the word is used of either 
Semitic language as the distinguishing mark of a part of the Jewish or Jewish- 
Christian community. 

2 The instances of ‘Efpaios, as listed by Leisegang, Index Philonis, mostly 
refer to the Hebrews in the time of Moses as contrasted with the Egyptians 
or other peoples. Moses’ own name is described as Egyptian rather than 
according to the language of the Hebrews. In giving other proper names 
from the Old Testament, Philo contrasts their LXX spelling as the way in 
which the ‘E8pato. name them with the Greek force of the original meaning. 
Once (De confus. ling. 26, § 129, M. p. 424) he substitutes for his usual ‘ES8pato 
- - + “E\Anves the contrast ‘ESpaio . . . queits. This seems at first sight to 
confirm the view that ‘ESpaio in Philo are contrasted with Jews who speak 
Greek. I think rather Philo identifies himself with all modern speakers in 
Greek, and by ‘Efpaio. means the Old Testament Hebrews. It is after all 
ancient Hebrew, not Aramaic, to which Philo is referring. The translators of 
the Septuagint under Ptolemy Philopator he describes as ‘E8pato. who in 
addition to their own culture are educated with the Hellenic ra:deia ‘EXAqvixy 
(De vita Mosis, ii. 6, § 32, M. p. 139). Cf. Chrysostom quoted below, p. 424, 
who says of the Hellenists of Acts, “EXAnvicrl épbéyyorro ‘EBpaia dvtes. Philo 
himself was thoroughly Greek in language. Yet Eusebius, H.Z. ii. 4. 2, calls 
him ‘Efpaios, and Photius seems to contrast him with the Hellenists when he 
says, Bibl. Cod. 105, that his power of discourse inspired ro?s ‘EXAnviorais with 
admiration. Photius is here following the Greek translation of Jerome, De 
vir. ill. xi. which reads apud Graecos. Suidas in the parallel reads rap’ “EXAyou, 
the so-called Sophronius rév ‘E\Anvixdv (see Texte und Untersuchungen xiv. 
16, 14 ff.). But for these writers ‘E8patos meant Jews in general and ‘E\Aqnoral 
Gentiles. For Christian uses of ‘ES8paios as possibly linguistic see Acta Philippi 
116 (ed. Bonnet, p. 47), éya “E8paia eiui, Ovydrnp ‘EBpalwy. AddAnoov wer’ éuod 
év TH Siadéxty T&v watépwr wov. Cf. Acta Thomae 8. 

® Interesting, though of uncertain date and origin, is the adjuration of the 
Great Magical Papyrus of Paris (line 3019), which begins dpxi{w ce xara Tod be0d 
tav ‘EBpalwy ’Incod. On the use of ‘E8paia and ’Iovdato by Greek and Roman 
writers see Juster, Les Juifs dans l’Empire romain, i. 173 note. 

Mr. Nock has called to my attention a passage—the only one known to me 

that uses together, as does Acts vi. 1, ‘E8paio: and ‘EAAnviocral—in the Testament 


inscriptions of the early imperial period describing ‘ synagogues of Hebrews’ 
—at Corinth, and at Rome,” and at Philadelphia in Lydia *—but there is 
no reason to suppose that we have in these names references to separate 
language-groups or that the synagogue in Jerusalem mentioned a little 
later in Acts vi., called ‘“‘of the Libertines, and of the Cyrenians and of the 
Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and Asia,” * would be called a syna- 
gogue of the Hellenists and not a synagogue of Hebrews. There are other 
instances of the word in the Jewish catacombs in Rome.® 

of Solomon, vi. 8 (p. 27* McCown): xade?ra: 5é rap’ ‘EBpators Marixh, 6 ad’ bous 
KaredOdv? ore 5¢ TSv ‘EAAnriorGv ’Eupavouhdr, of Sédocxa rpéuwrv. But this is 
the reading only of recension A; two other recensions read mapa dé "EdAnvas 
or “EAAqow. 

1 [owa]ywyh ‘EBplaiwy]. See Deissmann, Licht vom Osten‘, pp. 12 f. 
(second English translation, p. 16); Corinth, vol. viii. part i. ‘Greek In- 
scriptions,’ ed. by Benj. D. Meritt, pp. 78 f. On Jews in Corinth see the 
article by F. J. M. de Waele, Studia Catholica, iv., 1928, pp. 163 ff. For the 
opposite view see most recently the long argument of Zahn on Acts xviii. 4, 
Kommentar zum N.T. vol. v. pp. 638-646, ‘ “ESpaioi.—Tovdaion,’ and the note 
of Windisch on 2 Cor. xi. 22 (Meyer, Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar iiber das 
Neue Testament, vol. vi., 9th ed., 1924, pp. 350 f.). 

2 CIG. 9909 Larw[un] Ovyarnp Tadia rarpos cvvaywyns AtBpewv. Cf. Schiirer, 
Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom, 1879, p. 35; GJV.*‘ iii. p. 83; Juster, 
Les Juifs dans ?V Empire romain, i. 415, note f. 

3 7p ay.o7[ary oluvaywyh Tv ‘EBpatwy. Keil and von Premerstein, ‘ Bericht 
iiber eine dritte Reise in Lydien,’ Denkschriften der Akademie der Wissen- 
schaften in Wien, lvii., 1914, pp. 32 ff., No. 42. 

4 Possibly more than one synagogue is intended, see note ad loc. 

5 See N. Miller, Die jiidische Katakombe am Monteverde zu Rom, 1912, 
pp. 104 f., 109 f.; Kaibel, Inscr. Graecae Ital. et Sicil. 945 warpds rv ‘EBpéwv 
Tadia (in Portus); N. Miller and N. Bees, Die Inschriften der jiid. Katakombe 
am Monteverde zu Rom, 1919, Nos. 50, 109, 110, 111, 118, and see Index, s.v. 
“EBpatos. The word is used of individual Jews, including one known to be a 
Palestinian Jew (No. 118 Maxedévis 6 AiBpeos Keoapeds rs IlaXeorivys). In 
this early cemetery one of the few inscriptions to use Semitic translation is 
to the daughter dpx(ovros) ‘EBpéwy (No. 50, 2nd to 3rd cent. a.D.). The 
Semitic is Aramaic, not Hebrew. The fact that another synagogue Bepva- 
kA\nolwv or Bepvaxdépw or Bepydxdwy is mentioned (Nos. 109, 110, 111) might 
seem to imply a language classification, but the word Vernaculi, Vernaclenses 
doubtless means Jewish imperial slaves born in the household, and is to be 
compared rather with the other Roman synagogue titles Augustenses, and 
perhaps with the Synagogue of the Libertines in Acts vi. 9, and Caesar’s 
household in Phil. iv. 22. The synagogue groups need not be expected all to 
follow the same basis of nomenclature any more than do modern churches. 
G. La Piana, ‘Foreign Groups in Rome,’ in The Harvard Theological Review, 
xx., 1927, p. 356, note 26, after discussing other theories proposes that the 
synagogue ‘of the Hebrews’ was the oldest of all, and when newer ones were 
added it kept the name, and perhaps certain conservative customs and ancient 
pride. It is obvious how uncertain the real force of ‘E8paios is both in the 
New Testament and on the inscriptions. 


‘Hebrews’ as used in the O.T.,1 Apocrypha, and New Testament implies 
a contrast of Jews with foreigners. It is not the word used of the Hebrews 
speaking of themselves to others of their nation, but often is specially 
employed when a Jew is represented as speaking to a foreigner or being 
spoken of by foreigners. Similarly in Acts vi. ‘ Hebrews’ would seem to 
mean simply Jews spoken of from a Jewish standpoint and with a view to 
contrast, and ‘ Hellenists’ would mean those who were not Jews at all but 
outsiders, Gentiles (as at its later occurrences), or, in other words, it is a 
synonym of ¢0vy or “EAAnves. 

But, it will be objected, would the author of Acts introduce a Actsand the 
reference to Gentile Christians so early in his story and so casually ? He Ohetationtty. 
pays so much attention to Cornelius the centurion a few chapters later, 
and seems so clearly to imply that his case was an innovation (xv. 14), 
that it is usually assumed that he regards it as the great turning-point in 
the missionary history of the Church. My own impression is that the 
author of Acts, for all his attention to lines of development—an attention 
not expected in an ancient writer as it is in the days influenced by the 
evolutionary understanding of history—has nevertheless not attempted 
to portray a consistent picture of an originally Jewish and Judean Christi- 
anity systematically expanding to other lands and groups by definite 
intervening steps, but rather to emphasize the acceptance of the Gospel 
by non-Jews as a repeated phenomenon, which gradually broke down all 
opposition, not as one event which had one single beginning. It was the 
divine plan from the beginning, though its clear understanding came later 
and gradually. The preaching of Paul of course shows this process in city 
after city. ‘‘ Lo, we turn to the Gentiles, . . . the Gentiles will also hear,” 
are Paul’s first and last words in Acts from Pisidian Antioch to Rome. 

1 The title to the Epistle to the Hebrews is rps ‘Efpaiouvs. This is prob- 
ably not original, and the intention of those who used it is not clear. See 
J. Moffatt, ‘Hebrews,’ in International Critical Commentary, p. xv. It may 
have been a deduction from the apparent polemic against Judaism in the 
letter. Or it may be an inference made after the letter was attributed to 
Paul that since his other letters were addressed to Gentiles this different letter 
was addressed to Jews. In either case it implies nothing as to the Semitic 
language of the readers. If, however, the title came in still later when the 
difference of style between this and the other Pauline letters was urged by 
some against Pauline authorship, and was explained by others as due to the 
fact of translation into Greek (by Luke) from another language, then the 
E8pato. may be supposed to mean Aramaic-speaking Jews. An allegorical use 
of the name is claimed by F. M. Schiele in his article on the Epistle to the 
Hebrews in the American Journal of Theology, ix. (1905), pp. 290 ff. Compare 
also the Gospel according to the Hebrews as a title. It is said to have been 
written in Aramaic. 

2 Both ‘ESpato and Icpay\ occur appropriately distributed in Judith. The 
author of Acts shows in other cases a like regard for the different terms suitable 
for different speakers or situations, e.g. €0vos vs. \ads. See Addit. Note 32 and 
The Making of Luke-Acts, p. 228. 


Acts xiii. f. 



and the 


But even earlier in the book emphasis is laid on the successive and, one 
might almost say, repeated beginnings of Gentile Christianity. This 
can be seen most clearly by reviewing some passages in reverse order. 

(a) The missionary journey of Paul and Barnabas (xiii., xiv.) is 
regarded as an innovation in spite of the episode of Cornelius. Its scale 
and scope were of course impressive, but it is reported to various 
audiences as the opening of a door of faith to the Gentiles (xiv. 27; 
xv. 3, 4, 12).4 

(6) A little earlier at Antioch (xi. 19, 20), in spite of textual problems, the 
sense requires that while at first others preached the Gospel exclusively to 
the Jews, it was ultimately preached to non-Jews by certain men of Cyprus 
and Cyrene. But it is not explicitly said that Gentiles were first converted 
at Antioch, though the name ‘Christian’ was used there for the first 
time. The whole movement received the endorsement of Barnabas as a 
representative of the Church of Jerusalem, just as Philip’s work in Samaria 
was investigated and completed by Peter and John. But I believe that 
the innovation both in Samaria and at Antioch was regarded as geo- 
graphical rather than racial, as in the plan outlined in Acts i. 8: “ both 
in Jerusalem and in all Judaea and Samaria, and unto the uttermost 
part of the earth.” 

(c) The story of Cornelius (x. 1-xi. 18) precedes that of Antioch. The 
visions, the repetitions, etc., indicate how important it was considered. It 
is later recalled as a precedent (xv. 7). It was a notable instance of Gentile 
conversion, and it raised questions of divine authentication, of apostolic 
approval, and of the intercourse between Jewish and Gentile converts which 
find their echoes and their parallels elsewhere. 

(d) Still earlier in Acts comes Philip’s conversion of the eunuch, 
treasurer to the Ethiopian queen (viii. 26-40). The author’s interest in 
him is partly, of course, his high rank, but he is certainly a representative 
of ‘ the ends of the earth.’ Nothing is said as to whether he was a Jew or 
Gentile. That he was at least a proselyte is suggested by the two facts that 
he had come to Jerusalem to worship and that he was reading the Book 
of Isaiah. Whether in point of fact a eunuch could have become a 
proselyte or been admitted to the service of the Temple is a query which 
probably did not interest Luke.? Probably he could have done both. But, 
on the other hand, Greeks who were not necessarily converts to Judaism 

1 The reports to Jerusalem follow also the episode of Cornelius (xi. 1-3, 18), 
and recur as late in the book as xxi. 19f. . These passages, like the ‘monotonous’ 
turning to the Gentiles, show that the author did not regard the conversion of 
Gentiles as a single new departure. 

2 Strack’s Kommentar fails us at this point. Professor G. F. Moore has 
kindly replied to an inquiry as follows: ‘‘The question turns upon the inter- 
pretation of the phrase ‘the congregation of the Lord’ in Deut. xxiii. 2 (E.V. 
xxiii. 1). The Jewish interpretation of these words in that and the following 
verses (3-9) is that the classes of persons thus denied admission to the 
congregation may not marry a Jewish woman of pure race. It is so in 
the codes: Maimonides, Issuré Bi’ah 16, 1 ff.; Caro, Shulhan ‘Aruk, Eben 
ha-‘Ezer 5, 1 ff.; in the Talmud in various places, e.g. Yebamot 76 b. The 


went up to the temple to worship (John xii. 20 joav de"EAAnvés Teves €x 
Tov avaBawovTwv iva tporKuvyTwo €v TH €opT7), and there was a court 
of the Gentiles to which they were admitted... The eunuch may have 
been offering gifts on behalf of his queen. Such Gentile presents were not 
unusual at the temple. And that Gentiles read the Jewish scriptures 
in Greek is not improbable.? It is therefore possible that Luke regarded 
the eunuch as a Gentile, and ranked him as a notable convert from 

(e) Last in the list is the story of Pentecost (ii. 1-42). It is for the Pentecost. 
author an epoch-making event, as his emphasis on it shows. With the 
usually accepted text in ii. 5 (jjoav dé év “lepoveadArp Katotkovvres 
*lovdaior, dvdpes evAaBeis dd wavtds eOvovs Tov bird Tov ovpavdr) the 
audience is all Jews, and the Parthians, Medes, Elamites, etc., must be 

Jewish mediaeval commentators on Deut. (Rashi, Ibn Ezra) give the same 
interpretation, which is found also in the Jerusalem Targum. It goes as 
far back as we can trace the interpretation at all, namely, to Sifré on Deut. 
xxiii. 2 (cf. Midrash Tannaim, ed. Hoffmann, p. 144), that is to the juristic 
authorities of the middle of our second century or earlier, who state it as an 
unquestioned tradition. There is no reason to think that it was otherwise 
understood before the destruction of the temple. 

“« Kahal is for them not the whole ‘ congregation of Israel,’ as it is probably 
meant in the law, but is used of each one of four or five distinct classes, who 
worshipped together in the temple and synagogue, but in matters of marriage 
and succession are subject to different rules (Sifré Deut. 247, Judah ben Ila‘i) 
—-priests, levites, (lay) Israelites, proselytes. Some counted only three, others 
five (Kiddushin 72b-73a). 

‘There is on the part of the Rabbis no suspicion that Jews of illegitimate 
birth (n-1np) or proselytes from the different peoples named in the following 
verses were excluded from the temple worship; it is solely a question of when, 
if ever, their descendants may marry Israelites pur sang.” Cf. D. Hoffmann, 
Das Buch Deuteronomium, part ii. ad loc. The point is not what the original 
intention of the law in Deuteronomy was, but how it was understood and 
. applied in the times in which the story is laid. About that there can be no 
doubt. Not only the passage in Acts but Wisd. iii. 14 (following Isaiah lvi. 5) 
and Tos. Megillah 2, 7, dealing with the religious obligations of eunuchs (Jewish 
and proselyte), might be cited as indicating that the authors knew of no 
exclusion of eunuchs as such from the temple worship. 

1 Cf. Schiirer, GJV.‘ ii. pp. 357-363. 

2 Cf. xv. 21 and see Harnack, Bible Reading in the Early Church, pp. 57 
and 76 f. 

3 Cf. Karl Pieper, ‘Wer war der Erstling der Heiden?’ in Zeitschrift fir 
Missionswissenschaft, vol. v., 1915, pp. 124 ff. Eusebius, H.Z. ii. 1. 13, calls 
the Ethiopian the first Gentile convert. Origen, Hom. ad Num. xi. 3, p. 306, 
speaks of Cornelius as the first-fruits not only of the church of Caesarea, 
but perhaps of all Gentiles, for he was the first to believe from the Gentiles 
and the first filled with the Holy Spirit. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. iii. 18. 1, 
evidently regarded the converts at Pentecost as the first-fruits of all the 



Jews of the diaspora or at least proselytes.1 But, as is argued on p. 113, 
it is probable on the ground partly of textual evidence but still more of 
internal evidence that Iovdaior should be omitted in vs. 5, but retained in 
vs. 10. The writer probably regarded the event as the first and immediate 
fulfilment of the combined promise and command in i. 8. The ‘ men of 
every nation under heaven’ in ii. 5 correspond to ‘ the ends of the earth’ 
in i. 8. Of course the complete fulfilment came only when the disciples 
travelled to remote districts, but it began when they spoke to those who 
had come from these regions. 

The preaching to these strangers was successful, and many of them 
believed, ‘ and there were added in that day about three thousand souls’ 
(ii. 41). Therefore we need not be surprised if in chapter vi. the author 
refers casually to Gentile Christians already in Jerusalem.? Certainly as 
far as language is concerned, the story of Pentecost shows that the author 
regarded the varieties in Jerusalem, even among converts to the Church, 
as numbering not two but many. 

The result of the preceding paragraphs is to suggest from a review of 
Acts that the author did not represent the Church as taking a series of 
systematic logical steps, which would imply the evolution of a changing 
policy towards the problem of missionary work among the Gentiles. He 
recognized of course that the process of conversion proceeded by degrees, 
but the divine plan was present from the beginning; Luke’s real interest 
is not the evolution of an institution, but the gradual attainment of God’s 
predestined purpose. Such gradations of difference as, beginning with 
orthodox Jews at one end of the scale, and ending with Greeks at the other, 

1 We might argue that, even if we omit ’Iovdato at vs. 5, an audience called 
evAaBets (vs. 5, see note) and addressed as Jews and dwellers in Jerusalem (vs. 
14, see note) or Israelites (vs. 22) may have consisted of Jews, of full proselytes 
(who were treated as Jews and admitted as such into the Christian Church 
without controversy), and of looser adherents to Judaism (see Additional Note 8). 
But why are Jews and proselytes named in vs. 10 as though only part of the 
groups listed? Evidently the account of Pentecost is confused in more ways 
than one. For Luke’s carelessness see Harnack, Luke the Physician, p. 112. 
It is instructive to see with what circumspection Harnack has to use all these 
items in Acts in giving his account of ‘The Transition from the Jewish to the 
Gentile Mission’ (Mission, book i. chap. v.). Gardner in Cambridge Biblical 
Essays, 1909, p. 391, throws out to defenders of Luke’s inerrancy the challenge: 
“If anyone thinks him accurate in the report of fact, let such an advocate try 
to determine, out of Acts, when and where Gentiles were first admitted as 
members of the Christian Church.” 

2 In like manner after mentioning the conversion of ‘E\Aynvords at Antioch 
in Acts xi. 20 f. the author assumes in xv. 1 that there were uncircumcised 
Christians there. The omission of ‘Iovdato in Acts ii. 5 and the consequent 
interpretation of the assembly at Pentecost as Gentiles was urged by Blass, 
Neue kirchliche Zeitschrift, iii., 1892, pp. 826 ff. The objections of Zahn, 
Introduction to the New Testament, § 2, note 8, are weighty, unless, as I believe, 
the present account in Acts is a confusion on this question. 



cover Jews of the Dispersion, Greek-speaking Jews, Samaritans, Proselytes, 
and perhaps God-fearers—all these were doubtless well known to Luke, 
and he regarded them all as coming under Christian influence. But that 
influence did not pass through those gradations by a steady evolution, so 
dear to our modern minds. On the contrary, all were represented at the 
Day of Pentecost. 

There is therefore no difficulty in supposing that Acts vi. 1 may have 
introduced a story (perhaps from a new source, as is often supposed *) 
in which Gentiles and Jews already formed the two national divisions of the 
Jerusalem church. Whether this description is historically true is another 
question. The scribes who added ’lovéaio: in ii. 5 obviously thought that 
it was not. But it must be remembered that Jerusalem, then as now, was 
not inhabited only by Jews. The existence of foreigners in it presents no 
special difficulty, and Acts says nothing of the crucial question whether 
the converts were circumcised. The whole problem is intimately bound up 
with that of syncretistic types of religion—partly Jewish, partly heathen. 
All recent inquiry suggests that more of these existed in Syria than used to 
be thought (see especially the second edition of W. Bauer’s Commentary 
on John in Lietzmann’s Handbuch). 

Moreover, the possibility cannot be ignored that to some extent Luke 
read back into the story of the beginning of the Church facts which were 
and had long been a reality when he wrote. It should be remembered 
that his material for this part of his work must have been fragmentary 
and miscellaneous, and not easily conformed to such an evolutionary arrange- 
ment as modern scholars would like to trace through it. The absence of 
reliable information about the chronological order of the different episodes 
would make precarious for him and for us any claim that the events mark 
a logical and chronological progression. Even if the scene at Pentecost 
was not understood by him as indicating the conversion of Gentiles to 
Christianity, a reference at vi. 1 to Gentiles and their widows would really 
be no more abrupt than the sudden and unexplained introduction of two 
linguistic groups among the Christians. The author is perhaps here for the 
first and nearly the only time distinguishing within the Church those who 
were formerly Jews and those who were formerly Gentiles. For neither 
of these categories has he a fixed terminology. Indeed there is scarcely a 
terminology even to distinguish Christians from non-Christians, Jews who 
were Christians from those who were not, etc. We have such loose terms 
as of €k mepitouns miotoi (x. 45), of x mepiTopns (xi. 2), Teves TOV Gard 
THS aipérews Tov Papwraiwy remictevKdtes (xv. 5), yuvaikds lovdaias 
musts (xvi. 1), €v Tots ’lovdaiows Tov TemicTevKOTwV (xxi. 20), and Tots 

1 See note on Acts vi. 1 ff. and Vol. II. pp. 128, 147f. Harnack, Acts, p. 219, 
lists among cases of difficulty the abrupt introduction at vi. 1 of Hellenists and 
Hebrews. But oi walyrai also appears here for the first time in Acts (cf. p. 109). 

2 Even if he wished to give Gentile Christianity a methodical development, 
the facts did not permit him to do so. He lets us see in spite of himself 
that there were other communities or converts at Ephesus, Damascus, and 
Alexandria. Cf. D. W. Riddle, Jesus and the Pharisees, 1928, pp. 57 ff. 

Acts vi. 

Acts ix. 

Acts xi. 


amd tOv Ovdv érurrpéhovow émi Tdv Gedy (xv. 19), Tots adeAdois Tois 
e€ €Oviv (xv. 23), TOV memurrevKdtwv eOvav (xxi. 25). It would not be 
surprising, then, if in speaking of Jewish and Gentile groups in the Church 
he should use at vi. 1 ‘EBpaio. and ‘EAAnvwrai without repeating the 
former at all and without using the latter later in quite the same sense 
of Gentile Christians." 

Of the other two passages in Acts one provides no obstacle to the view 
that ‘ Hellenists ’ really means Gentiles, and the other confirms it, though 
in each case the evidence is not quite decisive. 

(i.) The first is Acts ix. 29 where we read of the newly converted Paul 
that at Jerusalem ‘he spake and disputed against the Hellenists.’ The 
context has nothing in it to indicate who are meant. But there is no reason 
why the author may not be supposed to have introduced here a prompt 
fulfilment of the prediction made at Paul’s conversion that he would be a 
missionary to Gentiles. ; 

(ii.) The other passage is Acts xi. 19 f. already referred to: ot peév ody 
Siacrapevres ard THs OAcilews THs yevopevys Ext Trepavy SunAGov Ews 
Poweikyns Kal Kimrpov kat *Avtioxelas, pndevt Aadodvytes Tov Adyov 
ei py povov “loviaiow. woav dé tives €€ adrav avdpes Kirpioe Kat 
Kvpnvaiou, ofriwes €AOdvres cis "Avtidxevav éXadovv Kat mpds Tovs 

1 Tf Hellenists is a party name it may have originated not in Judaism but 
in Christianity itself, used not so much of those whose race or language was 
Jewish, but of those who, unlike many Christians (cf. "Iovdalfew Gal. ii. 14), 
did not keep the Jewish way of life. Such a cleft existed already in Jerusalem, 
So, as I understand him, argued G. P: son Wetter in Archiv fiir Religionswissen- 
schaft, xxi., 1922, pp. 410 ff. He accepts the word neither at xi. 20 nor at 
ix. 29 (which would put Paul among the Judaizers !). 

My friend A. D. Nock is also inclined to regard ‘EA\nnorai as a Christian 
party name. He writes me: ‘The curious thing is the matter-of-fact way in 
which the word is used in vi. 1. Any Greek reader outside the Christian 
circles would have been puzzled, I think. Now the two certain examples are 
vi. 1 and ix. 29, both relating to Jerusalem. Have we here a Schlagwort, whose 
meaning was familiar at the time but which disappeared from use? Supposing 
the ecclesiastical literature of the nineteenth century were reduced to the 
slender bulk of early Christian writings, T'ractarian might present very serious 
difficulties. ‘EAAnvicrijs does seem to me to mean something quite definite.” 

By a soméwhat different route Walter Bauer (‘Jesus der Galilier’ in 
Festgabe fiir Adolf Jiilicher, 1927, pp. 32 f.) comes to the conclusion that 
‘E\Anvioral is not a term for Greek-speaking Jews but is used of members of 
the Christian community whether Jews or Gentiles ‘‘ who had no positive rela- 
tion to the Law, and in any case did not allow themselves to be subjected to its 
tyranny. In the main they probably originated from Galilee and the adjacent 
heathen districts.” Bauer derives the word from é\Anvifew as meaning, in 
antithesis to lovdaltew, ‘to conduct one’s life in the manner of the heathen,’ 
He adds in a note: ‘‘ What the word means in ix. 29I don’t know. In any 
case there they are not believers as at vi. 1. ‘EAA. occurs beside at xi. 20 as 
a variant, but only to strengthen the impression that the meaning of the 
word was early lost to Christian usage.” 


‘EAAnuords, ebayyeAr(opevor tov Kiptov “Incotv. The reading of the 
best manuscript evidence is certainly in favour of “EAAnvords, though 
AD®S* read. “EAAnvas. But the latter is the commoner word and is more 
likely to have been substituted, especially since its usual correlative 
*Iovdaiors occurs in the preceding verse. But if “EAAnviords is the right 
reading,’ the same ‘lovdaiors and indeed the whole context show that it 
cannot mean Jews—not even Greek-speaking ones—it must mean Gentiles 
and be synonymous with” EAAnvas. We may feel assured that, if inter- 
preters of the word “EAAnviocrai had taken their point of departure from 
this third instance rather than from the first, they would have quickly 
concluded that it meant not Jews but Gentiles. 

The objection may perhaps be raised that the word thus loses any Conclusion. 
distinction from” EAAnves, and that in vi. 1 “Epaiou is likewise made to 
mean much the same as “Jovdaior. Would the author use two words in 
the same sense for the same persons? I believe that he would, and that 
his variation between” EAAnves and ‘EAAnviorai is parallel to his variation 
for other words. It is worth noticing that while in the latter part of the book 
of Acts” EAAnves is frequent, only “EAAnvirai is used in the first twelve 
chapters. Possibly ‘EAAnviorai emphasizes more than the usual” EAAnves 
the alien character of these persons in a mainly Jewish atmosphere. The 
author of Acts is sensitive to make his words accord with the feeling of the 
context. It is a matter of common knowledge that his variation between the 
Greek and the Semitic spelling of Jerusalem (‘IepoodAvpa and ’lepovraAnp) 
is best explained by the variation between the more or less Hellenic stand- 
point of the context. With Paul and Barnabas travelling forth from the 
Levant into the lands of Asia Minor the author makes two other changes. 
The name Paul replaces Saul, and for the Jewish phrase God-reverer 
(poBovpevor) he substitutes God-worshippers (c¢Bdpevor). My conjecture 
is that at about the same point he quietly and unconsciously drops 
“EAAnvioraté and uses “EAAnves.? In like manner ‘EPpaiou, though it 
occurs only once to about 82 instances of *lovdaior, also occurs suitably 

1 On the reading see among others F. J. A. Hort in Notes on Selected 
Readings, pp. 93 f.; B. B. Warfield, ‘The Readings” E\Anvas and ‘EAnnoTds, 
Acts xi. 20,’ Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis, [iii.], 
1883, pp. 113-127; J. H. Ropes, Beginnings of Christianity, vol. iii., 1926, on 
Acts ix. 29 and xi. 20. On behalf of “E\\nvas see F. H. A. Scrivener, A Plain 
Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., 1894, vol. ii. pp. 
370 f. The reading of N* (evayye\ords), due to confusion with the following 
evayyeAtfouevor, apparently supports by its termination the reading of B, and 
that A in ix. 29 shows the same tendency to alter ‘EXAnvicrds into“EXAnvas. 

2 For other examples of such changes see my Making of Luke-Acts, pp. 
225 ff. With the variation discussed in this note compare the limitation of 
the word ’Icpa7\ to the songs and speeches of Luke and Acts except in the 
familiar LXX phrase in the narrative of Acts v. 21 yepovola rar vidy ’Iopahr. 
In the Sermon on the Mount Matthew twice uses of é@vxot for Gentiles 
(v. 47, vi. 7) and once ra 26vn (vi. 32; Luke xii. 30 ra 207 Too xocuod), but it is 
difficult to see any difference of meaning between them. 


in this older narrative. There is reason to believe that other writers also 
use it in an archaizing sense. Possibly a source suggested to Luke this 
isolated occurrence. 

The use of two words for the same thing is not unlike this author’s 
habits. Elsewhere it would seem that he likes to substitute a long word 
for a like-sounding shorter one. It is not merely that he likes prepositional 
compounds, but that, for example, he uses in his preface éwedyrep for 
ére.dy and rAnpodopéw for tAnpdw. Probably other examples exist in his 
writings.? ‘EAAnvirrai both by its length and by its implication of contrast 
is thus a more emphatic synonym for” EAAnves. 

The evidence of the early versions and commentators is not adverse to 
this interpretation. The Latin, Sahidic, Bohairic versions and the Syriac 
Peshitto render ‘EAAnvirrai as they do” EAAnves. It may be argued that 
they could not easily find one word to fit the meaning ‘ Greek-speaking 
Jews,’ but to translate it simply ‘Greeks’ was misleading if they understood 
it really of Jews.? A paraphrase would have been possible if not a single 
word, and the Peshitto once does use the expression ‘those who knew 
Greek.’ Strangely enough this is not at vi. 1 but at ix. 29. But the 
Peshitto is later than Chrysostom, and was made in circles which were 
affected by Antiochian influences.* 

It may be that the word was not familiar to translators. I have spoken 
of its infrequent occurrence in the writings known to us. Chrysostom, 
Hom. xiv. on vi. 1, says “EAAnvicras 8€ ofpar xadciv (sc. Aovkay) tovs 
EXdAnvicti POeyyopevovs: obrow yap “EAAnuoti dueAéyovto “EBpaior 
ovtes.5 It is evident that Chrysostom is guessing, though he is usually 
sure enough of his Greek. He uses the expressions o/ua and iows, and 

1 See Windisch on 2 Cor. xi. 22: “in allen spiteren Schriften in 
archaistischem oder in gehobenem Stil.” 

2 See Vol. II. p. 496; E. von Dobschiitz, Vom Auslegen des Neuen 
Testaments, 1927, p. 12, note 23. I may venture here to suggest a few cases 
of possible sesquipedalian substitution in the Book of Acts: ii. 46 adgedérnre 
xapdias for the usual amdérnre xapdias (see note ad loc.); xiii. 18 (from LXX 
Deut. i. 31) rporopopéw or rpopopopéw for rpégw; xvii. 4 mpooexrynpwOnoar, 
cf. v. 36 mpocexXlOn with v.l. rpooexo\dA7On; xvi. 37, xxii. 25 dxardxpiros for 
the usual dxpiros; xviii. 28 diaxarndéyxerTo, cf. xvii. 17, xviii. 4, etc., Suedéyero; 
xx. 24 redevdow (v.1. -Goa) tov Spduor, cf. xiii. 25, 2 Tim. iv. 7; xx. 32 
KAnpovoulay év rots jy.acuévo.s, cf. xxvi. 18 kAfpov ev rois qytacuévors, Col. i. 12 
KAfjpov Trav dyiwy ; xxv. 7 airupara karapéportes, cf. 18 airiay épepor. 

% Those who believe that these chapters of Acts are the rendering of an 
Aramaic original will be equally puzzled to know what Semitic term can lie 
behind ‘Edn ral if the one Greek word means explicitly Greek-speaking Jews- 

4 Eb. Nestle, ZNT'W. iii., 1902, pp. 248 f., in noting two other agreements 
in Acts between Chrysostom and the Peshitto (i. 12 dwéyov orddia éxrd; 
XViii. 3 cxvrordéuos) suggests the reverse relation, that Chrysostom worked from 
the Syriac. 

5 Cf. Hom. xxv. on xi. 21 tows da 7d wh eldévar “EBpasori, “EXAnvas (sic) 
avrovs éxdkowv. Evidently Chrysostom’s text and commentary originally read 
‘E\Anuords here. A like note, but of contrary nature, occurs in the Armenian 


he is making inferences from the likeness of “EAAnvicrai to the adverb 
‘EAAnvori. Since his day commentators have followed him except in his 
admission of doubt, so that it is worth while to remind ourselves how little 
we really know of the word Hellenists and how much can be said on behalf 
of regarding it as much more nearly a synonym for ‘ Greek’ or ‘ Gentile.’ 
Certainly it must mean non-Jews rather than Jews at xi. 20, where our 
only escape is to adopt what is textually the inferior reading “KAAnvas, 
probably an emendation rendered necessary by accepting Chrysostom’s 
exegesis of vi. 1. 

It is, of course, not the intention of this note to suggest that there 
were no Greek-speaking Jews. In the diaspora they were abundant. The 
inscriptions in the Jewish catacombs at Rome are with slight exception 
not in Hebrew or Aramaic,! nor does Egypt under the Ptolemies or the 
Caesars yield many Semitic papyri from the many Jews there.? In the 
former place they used Greek or Latin, in the latter Greek or Demotic. In 
Palestine also, where Luke mentions the Hellenists, doubtless many Jews 
spoke Greek, not only in Galilee near the Decapolis but also in Jerusalem. 
If we retain for Hellenjst its supposed meaning of those who could speak 
Greek, there were doubtless Hellenists there, including some of the many 
Jews who had returned from abroad. Like Paul, many if not most of them 
could also speak Aramaic. The surprise expressed in Acts xxii. 2 was not 
that a Jew of the dispersion could speak Aramaic, but that a stranger not 
recognized as a Jew at all but perhaps an Egyptian (xxi. 38) or one of some 
other nationality should prove able to speak in Aramaic. 

How many Jews knew Greek only, whether in Palestine or abroad, we 
do not know. Nor do we know by what name they were distinguished. 
Evidently not commonly by ‘ Hellenists’ or the word would occur more 
frequently. The rabbinic sources also fail to show a definite designation 
for Greek-speaking Jews. In Palestine neither the various vernaculars nor 
the language of the learned appear to have had any simple classification of 
Jews in accordance with their use or non-use of the Aramaic or Greek 

catena (Vol. III. p. 437) on the difficult passage xviii. 17, where Codex Bezae 
and the Antiochian text describe those who beat Sosthenes as “E\\nves: “‘ By 
Greeks here he means those Jews who spoke in the Greek language.” The 
preceding words are from Chrysostom, the succeeding ones from Ephrem. 
Either the commentator read ‘E\Anoral or he felt that “EXAnves had the same 
force as was usually given to that word. I may add, if only to increase our 
confusion, that it seems to some students of John quite possible that “EAAnves 
in that gospel (vii. 35, xii. 20) means precisely the diaspora or Greek-speaking 

1 Schirer, GJ V. iiit pp. 140 f. Even Scriptural personal names are quite 
scarce in the Jewish sepulchral inscriptions at Rome. 

2 L. Fuchs, Die Juden Agyptens in ptolemdischer wnd rémischer Zeit, 1924, 
pp. 114 ff. L. Blau, Papyri und Talmud in gegenseitiger Beleuchtung, 1913, 
p- 10, writing of Egypt emphatically declares “there can be no doubt 
that there was in the Hellenistic world an Aramaic diaspora beside the 
Greek diaspora.” His evidence is, however, slight. See also A. Causse, Les 
Dispersés d’Israél, 1929. 

The Jewish 


language, though there are many references to the Jews abroad living 
among the Gentiles, of kara 7a €Ovn ‘lovdaior (Acts xxi. 21). Possibly 
within Judaism they did not form as distinct, self-conscious, and well 
labelled a group as we have commonly supposed. They were much more 
aware of their difference from Gentiles. The frequent bilingualism of the 
first century doubtless made less conspicuous and significant the relatively 
few Jews who spoke exclusively either Greek or Aramaic. Using the terms 
in their generally accepted meaning, J. H. Moulton says: ‘“‘ There were 
clearly senses in which it was possible to be both Hebrew and Hellenist— 
Hebrew in that the tie to the mother country was never broken and 
Aramaic was retained as the language of the family circle, Hellenist in that 
foreign residence demanded perpetual use of Greek from childhood.” ? 

On the other hand the difference between Jews (or Hebrews) and 
Gentiles (or Greeks) was not insignificant. The Book of Acts is aware of it 
and never obliterates it in its story of Christianity, though Paul gives an 
impression of the relation between them more hostile in fact and more 
united in theory than does the Book of Acts. The three occurrences of 
“EAAnviora/ in it are perhaps to be understood as indicating in two cases 
the missionary approach of Jewish Christians like Paul and the men of 
Cyprus and Cyrene to non-Jews, in the other as an early case of friction 
between the two elements within the Church. 

By Kirsopr Lake 

The existence of the Diaspora of the Jews produced what is sometimes 
called the Jewish mission. But this phrase is liable to be misunderstood. 
There is no evidence at all that missionaries were ever sent out in the modern 

1 Cf. supra, pp. 69 ff. As time went on sub-classification of this sort did not 
increase either in Christianity or in Judaism, and was less needed as Greek- 
speaking Jews and Aramaic-speaking Christians became negligible. Only three 
groups emerged needing sharp distinction—the Jews, the Gentiles, and the 
Christians. See Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung, vol. i., Exkurs. ‘ Die 
Beurteilung der Christen als drittes Geschlecht.’ 

It is evident that much of the neatly pigeon-holed picture of the early 
church and its rivals to which we are accustomed goes further than our 
sources warrant. Beside the doubts expressed here about the Hellenists 
and Hebrews, the new historian of the apostolic age will have to consider the 
questions simultaneously raised by D. W. Riddle in the Anglican Theological 
Review, xii., 1929, pp. 15 fi., ‘The So-called Jewish Christians,’ and by J. H. 
Ropes in his ‘Singular Problem of the Epistle to the Galatians,’ 1929. 
Without ‘Hellenists’ in Acts, or ‘Judaizers’ behind Galatians, or ‘Jewish 
Christians’ anywhere, such a book as’ Hort’s Judaistic Christianity would 
require drastic re-writing. : 

2 Cambridge Biblical Essays, 1909, p. 481. Both Philo (note 2, p. 63) 
and Chrysostom (see p. 72) still seem to call such Greek-speaking Jews ‘ESpaiou. 


or Christian sense. But wherever Jews settled, they established a synagogue 
which, by its peculiar practices, attracted the attention of non-Jews who 
were not wholly satisfied with heathenism. 

The facts have been so excellently stated by my friend, Professor G. F. 
Moore, that I venture to put in his words what I could not express equally 
well in my own. Even, he says, “if some of the methods of Jewish apolo- 
getic and polemic provoked prejudice rather than produced conviction, 
the belief in the future universality of the true religion, the coming of an 
age when ‘ the Lord shall be king over all the earth,’ when ‘ the Lord shall 
be one and his name One,’ led to efforts to convert the Gentiles to the 
worship of the one true God and to faith and obedience according to the 
revelation he had given, and made Judaism the first great missionary 
religion of the Mediterranean world. When it is called a missionary religion, 
the phrase must, however, be understood with a difference. The Jews did 
not send out missionaries? into the partes infidelium expressly to proselyte 
among the heathen. They were themselves settled by thousands in all the 
great centres and in innumerable smaller cities ; they had appropriated the 
language and much of the civilization of their surroundings ; they were 
engaged in the ordinary occupations, and entered into the industrial and 
commercial life of the community and frequently into its political life. 
Their religious influence was exerted chiefly through the synagogues, which 
they set up for themselves, but which were open to all whom interest or 
curiosity drew to their services. To Gentiles, in whose mind these services, 
consisting essentially of reading from the Scriptures and a discourse more 
or less loosely connected with it, lacked all the distinctive features of cultus, 
the synagogue, as has been observed above, resembled a school of some 
foreign philosophy. That it claimed the authority of inspiration for its 
sacred text and of immemorial tradition for its interpretation, and that 
the reading was prefaced by invocations of the deity and hymns in his 
praise, was in that age quite consistent with this character. That the 
followers of this philosophy had many peculiar rules about food and dress 
and multiplied purifications was also natural enough in that time. 

“The philosophy itself, whose fundamental doctrines seemed to be 
monotheism, divine providence guided by justice and benevolence, and 
reasonable morality, had little about it that was unfamiliar. Even what 
they sometimes heard about retribution after death, or a coming conflagra- 
tion which should end the present order of things, was not novel. But at 
the bottom Judaism was something wholly different from a philosophy 
which a man was free to accept in whole or in part as far as it carried the 
assent of his intelligence. It might be a reasonable religion, but it was in 
an eminent degree a religion of authority ; a revealed religion, which did 

1 Judaism, i. pp. 323 f. See also A. Bertholet, Die Stellung der Israeliten 
und der Juden zu den Fremden, 1896, and J. Juster, Les Juifs dans Vempire 
romain, 1914, i. pp. 253 ff. 

2 It is perhaps curious that Moore does not refer to Matt. xxiii. 15, which 

‘speaks of the Jews compassing sea and land to make one proselyte, but 
apparently there is nothing in Rabbinic writings to suggest that this means 
missionary enterprise in the modern sense. 


not ask man’s approval but demanded obedience to the whole and every 
part, reason and inclination to the contrary notwithstanding ; an exclusive 
religion which tolerated no divided allegiance ; a religion which made a 
man’s eternal destiny depend on his submission of his whole life to its law, 
or his rejection of God who gave the law. Such, at least, was the rigour of 
the doctrine when it was completely and logically presented. 

ay mag “Tt is certain that it was not always preached so uncompromisingly. 

Diaspora. Especially in the Hellenistic world, polytheism and idolatry was so de- 
cisively the characteristic difference between Gentile and Jew that the 
rejection of these might almost seem to be the renunciation of heathenism 
and the adoption of Judaism ; and if accompanied by the observance of 
the sabbath and conformity to the rudimentary rules of clean and unclean 
which were necessary conditions of social intercourse, it might seem to be a 
respectable degree of conversion. Nor are utterances of this tenor lacking 
in Palestinian sources ; e.g. The rejection of idolatry is the acknowledge- 
ment of the whole law. 

The religious ‘Such converts were called religious persons (‘ those who worship, or 

heathen. revere, God ’),? and although in a strict sense outside the pale of Judaism, 
undoubtedly expected to share with Jews by birth the favour of the God 
they had adopted, and were encouraged in this hope by their Jewish 
teachers. It was not uncommon for the next generation to seek incorpora- 
tion into the Jewish people by circumcision.’ .. . 

** However numerous such ‘ religious persons’ were, and with whatever 
complaisance the Hellenistic synagogue, especially, regarded these results of 
its propaganda, whatever hopes they may have held out to such as thus 
confided in the uncovenanted mercies of God, they were only clinging to the 
skirt of the Jew (Zech. viii. 23); they were like those Gentile converts to 
Christianity who are reminded in the Epistle to the Ephesians that in their 
former state, when they were called uncircumcised by the so-called circum- 
cision, they were aliens to the Israelite commonwealth, foreigners without 
tight in the covenanted promises.” 4 

Proselytes In the eighteenth century the erroneous custom arose * of saying that 
of the Gate. these ‘religious persons’ were regarded by the Jews as a special kind of 
proselyte—proselytes of the Gate. That is now recognized as a mistake, 
but the evil result has remained, so that even in books such as Strack- 
Billerbeck’s magnificent commentary on the New Testament, the name of 
* half-proselyte’ is given to this class of non-Jew who was interested in 
Judaism. Yet this name is surely unjustifiable. A proselyte is within the 
covenant, a non-Jew is without it, and fractional proselytes are impossible. 

1 Sifré Num. § 111; Deut. § 54; Hullin 5a, and parallels. One who 
renounces idolatry is called in Scripture a Jew. Megillah 13a, top. 

2 doBovpevar Tov Oedv, ceBduevac Tov Oedv, or abbreviated, ceBduevon. In 
Hebrew, pnw ox. 

3 Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96 ff. 

4 danddorpiwpévo. Tis modcrelas Tod "Iopanr Kal tévor Trav Siabnxav ris 
érayyenlas, Ephesians ii. 12. Proselytes, on the contrary, have come over to 
Kawvy Kal didobéw trodirela, Philo, De monarchia, c. 7 § 51 (M. ii. p. 219). 

5 See below, p. 81. 


After abandoning the view that this non-Jew interested in Judaism was God-fearers. 
called a proselyte of the Gate, scholars adopted the theory, first made 
popular by Jacob Bernays, that in Acts these non-Jews were called ‘ God- 
fearers,’ poBovpevor or weBdpevor Tov Oedv, and that the same phrase in 
the LXX also applies to them. This is doubtless correct, though the 
technical nature of the phrase has been exaggerated. (For the discussion 
of this point see pp. 82 ff.) 

Thus it is clear that the synagogues in the large cities of the Roman 
Empire were surrounded by a fringe of non-Jew worshippers, some of whom 
ultimately became proselytes, some of whom did not. It is also probable 
that some of the non-Jew worshippers may have thought that a combina- 
tion of the best points of Judaism with the best points of heathenism 
would be a more satisfactory religion than either. (For the evidence that 
this actually happened see pp. 88 ff.) 

Obviously this fringe of non-Jews, not satisfied with heathenism, and 
hesitating whether to become proselytes or to start some new method of 
worshipping God, provided the Christian missionaries with the best possible 
opportunity for making converts. Almost certainly a majority of the first 
Greek Christians came from this class, and this illumines two of their char- 
acteristics which are otherwise difficult to explain. On the one hand they 
were not Jews—the existence of any large body of Jews converted to 
Christianity is doubtful and improbable’—but on the other hand they 
were all acquainted with the LXX. 

This note is therefore devoted to discussing three topics belonging to 
the general subject of Jewish missionary practice and terminology : 

(i.) The requirements made from converts to Judaism. 

(ii.) The words used to describe proselytes, and those who were in 
varying degrees interested in Judaism. 

(iii.) The evidence for separate syncretistic cults organized by those 
who, starting with an interest in Judaism, ended by establishing 
societies distinct from, though analogous to, the Synagogue or 
the Church. 

(i.) The Requirements made from Converts who wished to become 
full Members of the Synagogue 

The requirements which the Jews laid down for accepting a convert 
into the People were : 

(a) Some kind of instruction. The nature of this instruction was Jewish 
probably left to individual rabbis in the earliest period and afterwards ™*tuction. 
became standardized, but no written record exists. It has been argued, 
notably by Taylor, Seeberg, and Klein, that the Christian Didache is based 
upon a Jewish book of instructions for converts which was called The Two 
Ways. This is possible, but the evidence adduced does not amount to 
demonstration. It should, however, be noted that it is quite inconceivable 

1 See especially J. H. Ropes, ‘The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the 
Galatians,’ in the’ Harvard Theological Studies, xiv. (1929). 




that this process of instruction did not exist. Jews and Gentiles were 
both intelligent groups and neither would wish to make converts or to be 
converted without some understanding of the questions involved. So 
that in any district where the Jewish mission was at all successful there 
must have been a group of Gentiles interested in Judaism but not yet 
fully converted. 

(b) The one essential for reception into the People was circumcision. 
This is so universally acknowledged that it is unnecessary to accumulate 
evidence. But it is very interesting to notice that there is in Judaism a 
curious controversy between the school of Shammai and the school of 
Hillel as to the validity of circumcision ex opere operato. If a man who 
belonged to an Arab tribe which practised circumcision was converted to 
Judaism, was this non-Jewish or heretical circumcision to be regarded as 
valid ? The school of Shammai said ‘no’; the school of Hillel said ‘ yes.’ 
Obviously Cyprian would have felt quite at home in this discussion. 

(c) Baptism.—In Judaism washing the body was one of the ways by 
which an Israelite who had become unclean through leprosy or through 
ceremonial accident could recover his cleanliness. Similarly a convert was 
washed or baptized when he was taken in to the People. It was true that a 
heathen, inasmuch as he was not under the Law, could not be unclean in 
the sense of the Law, but from the point of view of the Jew he was as a 
heathen essentially unclean. (Cf. John xviii. 28 and Acts x. 28.) It would 
appear that as time went on this baptism became more and more important. 
The earliest evidence of it seems to be contained in the story of a dispute 
between the school of Shammai and the school of Hillel. According to 
the school of Shammai, if a proselyte was circumcised on the day before 
the Passover he was baptized and then could eat the Passover, but the 
school of Hillel said that the circumcised are like those who have been 
defiled by the grave (that is, by touching a corpse or a grave), and there- 
fore could not be baptized for seven days. Whether this baptism was on 
a level with other ceremonial washings or had a different nature is open 
to argument. (For the evidence about this controversy see Strack, vol. i. 
pp. 102 f.; G. F. Moore, Judaism, vol. iii. note 103.) 

This baptism gradually became more and more important. In the case 
of women it was the only act of initiation, and it is not difficult to see that 
this would tend to make it more and more important for men also. The 
classical illustration of this fact is a discussion between Rabbi Eliezer ben 
Hyrcanus and Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah. Eliezer (representing the 
school of Shammai) maintained that the convert is a proselyte, ie. an 
adopted member of the People, as soon as he has been circumcised, and 
independently of baptism, while Rabbi Joshua went so far as to claim that 
a man was a proselyte if he were baptized even though he were not circum- 
cised. But the opinion of Rabbi Joshua appears to have been in the nature 
of a paradox which no one else accepted. The story is given in a baraita 
(Yebamot 46a). “Of a proselyte who is circumcised but not baptized,” 
said Rabbi Eliezer b. Hyrkanus, “ behold, that man is a proselyte, for we 
find it so among our fathers (the Israelites who came out of Egypt) because 
they were circumcised but not baptized (before the entrance into the 


covenant of Sinai).’”’ If he was baptized and had not been circumcised, so 
said Joshua b. Hananiah, “‘ behold he is a proselyte, for we find it so among 
our mothers (the Israelitish women who came out of Egypt) that they were 
baptized but not circumcised (at their entrance into the covenant of Sinai). 
But the learned (that is the contemporaries of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi 
Joshua) said, If he has been baptized, but has not been circumcised, or if 
he has been circumcised but has not been baptized, he is no proselyte until 
he is circumcised and has been baptized.” 

The suggestion that baptism without circumcision was valid is startling 
and contrary to everything which we know of Judaism, but two things 
must be remembered. In the first place, much of the controversy attri- 
buted to distinguished rabbis in the Talmud is merely staged in order to 
clear up a position by more or less fictitious opposition. In the second 
place, the question has been raised whether behind this argument there is 
not a certain sense that belief, circumcision, and baptism form a connected 
whole. The first step—belief—implies an obligation to the other two, and 
so also circumcision and baptism each implies an obligation to the other. 
Undoubtedly this would be accepted as a fair statement by any learned 
Jew. The question was at what stage in this threefold process did the 
convert enter upon the full possession of the privileges given to him. The 
old answer was when he was circumcised ; the later answer was when he 
had been circumcised and baptized, and the passages dealing with the 
subject in the Talmud are intended to emphasize the importance of baptism, 
not to minimize that of circumcision. Thus, for instance, according to 
Yebamot 46a, Rabbi Hiyya bar Abba, who lived about a.p. 280, declared 
that the children of a Jewish mother and of a proselyte who had been 
circumcised but not baptized were illegitimate, and according to the Abodah 
Zarah 57a, Rabbi Simi ben Hiyya said that slaves bought from the heathen, 
who had been circumcised but not baptized, defiled by their footprints on 
the street. 

(zd) A fourth requirement in theory was that the proselyte should offer Sacrifice. 
sacrifice in the temple. Clearly this could not be carried out because the 
temple had been destroyed, and it remained in a condition of suspense. 

It is obvious that to the Christian scholar the most important part of Christian 
these conditions for the acceptance of a proselyte are the two which were aa 
taken over by the Christian church—instruction and baptism. Originally, 
as in Judaism, instruction preceded baptism, though the position was 
reversed when child baptism was introduced, just as it was reversed in 
Judaism where, with children born into the covenant, circumcision pre- 
ceded instruction. Unfortunately we have no examples of the formula- 
tion of Jewish instruction contemporary with the New Testament ; it may 
have influenced Christian instruction, but here again our knowledge does 
not begin to be full until much later. Roughly speaking, we have four main 
sources of information: (i.) the Didache, (ii.) the Didascalia, (iii.) the 
Epistola Apostolorum, and (iv.) the Epideixis of Irenaeus. Except in the 
Didache, there would seem to be little trace of Jewish influence, but much 
anti-Jewish argument. In the Didache there is perhaps evidence that an 


The two 
of ger. 


early document was used—‘ The Two Ways ’—and that this was based on 
an original Jewish book of instruction. Such, at least, is the opinion of 
Klein? and others who have special knowledge of the Jewish sources. It 
is also probable that the instructions for worship which follow ‘ The Two 
Ways’ are influenced by Jewish practice, though largely by way of con- 
trast. Thus the Eucharistic and other prayers are constructed on Jewish 
lines, but the Lord’s Prayer is substituted for the Tefillah, and the fast 
days, Wednesday and Friday, are chosen in contrast to Monday and 

(ii.) The Names used for Converts 

HeEsrew. (i.) Ger (711).—Two views have been held about the meaning 
of this word. (a) Throughout the Old Testament it means a non-Israelite 
living in Israelite territory. This is the older view, at least in modern books, 
and is accepted without discussion in Strack ii. pp. 715 ff. (b) It has this 
meaning in the more primitive parts of the Law, including Deuteronomy, 
but in the later parts, and in the later books generally, it means a convert 
to the religion of Israel. This view is adopted by Moore in Judaism, 
i. pp. 328 ff.,? and seems to have the weight of evidence in its favour. 

In rabbinical writings the word ger has the second meaning and is used 
to describe a Gentile who has become a Jew by the methods discussed on 
pp. 77 ff. 

Owing to this change in meaning, it was necessary to distinguish 
between ger in the original sense and ger in the later. Thus Kohut’s ‘Aruch 
Completum says, “ There is a ger who is a foreigner residing in Israel who 
has promised not to serve other Gods. He is a ger toshab. There is also a 
ger who has become a convert in all respects and has become a Jew. This 
is the ger zedek.”” That the rabbis fully recognized that the ger in the 
primitive sense was, to say the least, frequently not a convert, can 
be shown by such passages as the commentary on Exodus xx. 10 in the 
Mekilia of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai: “If this had referred to a ger zedek 
(that is, a convert), it would repeat what had been said already where it 
is said that there shall be one law to you and to the ger... . ‘Thy ger’ 
refers to the ger toshab who is your hired man, and the command prevents 
Israelites from forcing him to work on the Sabbath ; but he may work if 
he himself will.” 

Human nature being what it is, it is obvious that conversion is often 
due to mixed motives, and the rabbis distinguished these motives by 
the various adjectives which they used to describe different types of ger. 
A convert actuated by worthy motives was a ger sedek or ger emet, a 
proselyte from righteous motives or for the sake of the truth ; and similarly 
the convert actuated by unworthy motives was described as a ger zeker, 
a proselyte of fraud. Most of these phrases are self-explanatory, but there 
is one which calls for explanation as a curiosity of literary allusion. This 

is the ‘ lion proselyte,’ which means a convert through fear of consequences, 

and the reference is to the story in 2 Kings xvii. 24-33 which described 

1 G. Klein, Der dlteste christliche Katechismus. 
2 See also Robertson Smith, 0.7.J.C. 2nd ed. p. 342 note 1. 


how the aliens introduced into the region of Samaria by the Assyrians 
after the captivity of the Northern Kingdom were attacked by lions and 
accepted the worship of Jehovah on the theory that the lions came 
from him. 

Thus ger completely changed its meaning; instead of being a foreigner 
living among Israelites but not converted to their religion, the ger came to 
be the name of a foreigner who was converted. 

(ii.) Z’oshab.—Another name used in the Old Testament to describe Toshab. 

these strangers living in the land of Israel was toshab (2v.n), and this word 
and ger were frequently combined with a copula (ger we-toshab). The 
phrase is generally represented in the English version by ‘stranger and 
sojourner’ and in the LXX by zpooyAvtos 7) raporxos. Without the 
copula between the words it is found in the Old Testament only in Lev. 
xxv. 47, and inasmuch as in this passage the Samaritan and the ancient 
versions insert the copula the reading of the Massoretic text may be 
accidental. Nevertheless it is apparently the origin of rabbinic use; for 
to express the original meaning of ger the rabbis took over the phrase 
ger toshab and used it in the sense of an unconverted foreigner who lived 
in the land of Israel. It was especially used to explain ger in the Old 
Testament, where it obviously could not mean a convert (cf. the quotation 
given above from the Mekilta of Rabbi Simeon ben Yohai). It will be 
seen, however, that the phrase had little more than archaeological or 
exegetical importance, as in the days when it was used Israel possessed 
no territory of its own. 

The rabbis laid down various rules for governing intercourse between Noachian 
Jews and the ger toshab. These rules naturally enough are all put in the ™!*- 
form of regulations implying the possession of Palestine by the Jews. The 
ger toshab was required to keep the seven commandments known as 
‘ Noachian,’ that is to say traditionally given by Noah to his sons. These 
seven commandments are directed against blasphemy, idolatry, fornication, 
the shedding of blood, robbery, the use of meat containing blood ! (lit. 
from a living animal), and disobedience to the legal authorities. It is 
possible that they represent a real tradition as to the practice of Israel in 
Palestine, but it is very curious that they do not include the observation 
of the Sabbath. It has been suggested that in practice these regulations 
were used in the time of the rabbis to control the conduct of those who 
were meditating conversion or for other reasons wished to be on friendly 
terms with the Jews, but the evidence that this was the case is lacking 
_ and the theory merely depends on general probability. For the possible 
relations between the Noachian commandments and the apostolic decrees 
in Acts xv. see Addit. Note 16. 

(iii.) Ger sha‘ar.—At quite a late period the mediaeval rabbis possibly Proselytes 
but not certainly used the phrase ger sha‘ar, generally translated in modern % *¢ te. 
books ‘ proselyte of the gate.’ This expression is said to have been used 
as a synonym for a ger toshab in allusion to the Old Testament phrase 
‘the stranger within your gates,’ for which it is an abbreviation, but 

1 This was the additional command given to Noah; the remainder were 
given to Adam. 


Fearers of 

Greek ren- 
derings of 


according to Strack, vol. ii. p. 723, it was first used by Rabbi Bechai in 
the thirteenth century.1 Unfortunately the phrase caught the eye of 
Deyling in the eighteenth century, and in his Observationes Sacrae (1720), 
vol. ii. pp. 462-469, he devoted part of his essay De weBopevors Tov Oedv to 
arguing that the o<¢Gdmevor Tdv Gedy are the proselytes of the gate. This 
identification was generally accepted, so that it figured in all books on 
the New Testament up to and including the second edition of Schiirer’s 
Geschichte des jiidischen Volkes. But in his third edition Schiirer showed 
that Deyling’s view was unsound. However, owing partly to the fact that 
the English translation of Schiirer was made from the second German 
edition, it is still quite frequently met with. 

(iv.) Jere Shamaim.—Another phrase important in this problem is 
jere shamaim (pnw oxy), ‘ fearers of Heaven,’ which was used to describe 
a Gentile who had accepted the truth of the Jewish religion but had not 
joined it by being circumcised. This use can be traced back as far as the 
Midrash Rabbah on Deuteronomy (cf. Mekilia on Exod. xxii. 20) in con- 
nexion with a story referred to the time of Gamaliel III. (circa a.p. 90). 
There does not appear to be any clear evidence of this use in earlier litera- 
ture, but in the later Midrashim it is fairly often used, and the writers 
explain that the phrase jere adonai (for which jere shamaim is of course 
merely a substitute with the usual shamaim by metonymy for adonai), 
which is so common in the Old Testament, has this peculiar meaning, which 
modern writers generally represent by the very dubious phrase ‘ half- 
proselyte.’ It is, however, extremely doubtful whether there is really 
any passage in the Old Testament where the phrase has this meaning, 
and in an overwhelming majority of instances it is merely used to indicate 
the exemplary nature of the Israelite to whom it refers. It is perhaps 
desirable to point out that eisegesis has often been substituted for exegesis 
in treating the phrase in the Old Testament. For instance, 2 Chron. v. 6 
is sometimes quoted as an example of a reference to ‘ half-proselytes ’ as 
jere shamaim or poPBotpevor rdv Oedv, but, apart from the fact that there 
is nothing in the Hebrew to represent of hoBovpevor Tov Gedy, it is tolerably 
clear that the real meaning is ‘ the whole house of Israel ’—the pious and 
the proselytes. 

THE GREEK. (i.) tpoojAvtos and wdpotxos.—In the LXX ger is 
rendered sometimes by rpoo7AvTos, sometimes by rdpovxos, and in two 
passages (Exod. xii. 19; Is. xiv. 1) by yeswpas, which is a transliteration 
of the Aramaic for ger. (Cf. Simon ben Giora in the Jewish war.) 

It has often been held that rpoo7Avros in the LXX is a synonym of 
mdpovkos and that both words correctly render the meaning of ger=a 
foreigner, not a convert. This view was maintained by Geiger, Urschrift 
und Ubersetzungen der Bibel, pp. 353 ff., and is adopted with little or no 
discussion by Schiirer and Strack. 

The evidence of Josephus and Philo is interesting in its implication 

1 G. F. Moore, Judaism, i. p. 341, knows of no occurrence earlier than R. 
Moses ben Nahman (d. 1270). 


rather than its direct statements. Josephus? apparently does not use the Josephus. 

word mpoo7Avtos, and Philo uses it only three times. In each case it is 
with reference to a passage in the Old Testament, and he explains the word 
almost apologetically. Apparently the word did not seem to cultivated 
Greek-speaking Jews to be a satisfactory phrase to be used in educated 
Greek, as indeed might be guessed from its absence from Greek literature 
in general. Nevertheless a passage from De monarchia makes it plain that 

Philo interpreted the word rpooyAvtos as meaning a convert. In the Philo. 

De monarchia, 7, § 51, M. ii. p. 219, he says: kat ravras Tovs éuorotpdémovs 
eit obv hivras €£ dpxns «ite Kal ex Tov petaBdAXerGat mpds TV 
dpeivw TaEw Kpeitrous yeyovdtas arodexeTat, TOYS pev OTL THY EvyéevEeLav 
ov katédvoay, Tos & dtu mpds eboéBevav HElwrav peOoppicacbai— 
tovtovs S¢ KaAdei mpoondvrovs dard Tod mporeAndrAvOévat Kay Kal 
dirobew rodtteig,—ol pvOikav pev drAoyoto. TAaT ATHY, TepLexovTat 
dé dxparpvovs dAnOeias. Obviously this interpretation is connected with 
the change in the meaning of ger, which in turn reflects the gradual 
development of Israel from a nation with resident aliens to a church with 
converts, and corroborative evidence can be found in De sacrificantibus, 
10, § 308 f. (M. ii. p. 258); De iustitia 6, § 176 ff. (M. ii. p. 365); De humani- 
tate, 12, § 102 ff. (M. ii. p. 392); De poenitentia, 1, § 175 ff. (M. ii. p. 405). 

Thus beyond doubt the development of the word tpoo7Avtos was the 
same in Greek as that of ger in Hebrew. The question is whether the 
change was made before or after the translation of the Old Testament into 
Greek. In other words, should we always translate tpoojAvros in the 
LXX by ‘sojourner,’ or did it in the intention of the translator mean 
‘convert’ ? 

There is no doubt but that wdpotxos means a resident foreigner—ger 
in the older sense—but zpoo7Avrtos is a more doubtful question, for it is 
certain that in the New Testament and in Patristic Greek it regularly means 
a convert. But Geiger and his successors were influenced by the view that 
ger in the Old Testament always means a resident foreigner, and thought 
that the change of meaning both in ger and in rpoo7jAvros was not made 
until the first century A.D. 

An article by W. C. Allen (Zxpositor, October 1894, pp. 264 ff.), which 
seems to have been strangely overlooked, gives a full analysis of the question 
and suggests that the matter is not so simple as it is usually represented. 
He points out that although it is true that in biblical Hebrew the ger is 
a foreigner, and only in rabbinical writings is regularly used to mean a 
convert, still the priestly code in the Pentateuch shows that the word 
was fast developing into the later sense, and he goes on to argue that 
by the time of the LXX the word had already acquired its later meaning. 
The translators were aware of the change, used mdporxos in passages 
where ger obviously can only mean ‘ foreigner,’ and substituted pooyAvtos 
where the word might conceivably be used for ‘ convert.’ That is to say, 
in Allen’s words, “in the great majority of cases where ger occurs in the 
Hebrew text the Greek translators have not simply translated into the 

1 Josephus, Antig. xviii. 3. 5, § 82, almost presupposes the word by using 
the perf. part. rpoceAndvOviar. 

W. C. Allen. 



exact Greek equivalent but have read into the word the later meaning 
which it has in the Mishna.” Allen goes on to give a list of passages in 
which ger is translated by +épotxos, and in all of them the sense of ‘convert’ 
is excluded by the context. He then gives a list of 69 passages in which 
mpoonAvros renders ger and may have been interpreted as ‘ convert,’ 
though this was not the real meaning of the original Hebrew. Furthermore, 
he argues that just as the LX X distinguishes the sense in which it interprets 
ger by using sometimes répotxos and sometimes tpoo/Avtos, so it dis- 
tinguishes it in the cognate words which have to be rendered by verbs, 
sometimes using wapocxeiy but changing to mpocépyerOar when the 
sense of convert appears possible. He is, however, obliged to force the 
meaning a little in some instances, especially those in which ger is used 
of the Israelites in Egypt. They were certainly not ‘ converts’ but quite 
definitely ‘sojourners’; nevertheless in these passages ger is sometimes 
rendered by tpooyjAvros and not by mépoixos (Exod. xxii. 20, xxiii. 9; 
Lev. xix. 34; Deut. x. 19). 

Thus, though Allen’s paper certainly shows that the question is not 
quite so simple as it is often represented to be, he seems somewhat to 
overstate his case. It is true that rdpoxos is used eleven times, and that 
in these cases the sense ‘ convert’ is inadmissible; and it is also true that 
in the much larger number of passages where zpoo7jAvros is used it is 
often possible to suppose that the translator meant ‘convert,’ that is to 
say, was interpreting ger in the later rabbinic sense. But even so he has 
to admit that in certain passages mpoo7AvTos cannot mean ‘convert,’ 
and in a good many more passages it seems that his interpretation is some- 
what strained. On the whole it seems probable that the translators of 
the LXX knew that ger did not always mean ‘ convert,’ and sometimes 
—when they were specially careful—used répo.xos to render it, but it 
had already acquired its later meaning for which Greek-speaking Jews 
used zpoo7Avtos, so that the tendency of the translators was regularly to 
use 7poo7j)AvuTos to render ger, and to do so too often. 

In any case it is certain that ger changed its meaning. It began 
by meaning ‘foreigner’ and ended by meaning ‘convert.’ Similarly © 
mpoohAvtos probably once meant ‘foreigner’ and afterwards ‘convert.’ 
The evolution of the two words is exactly the same. The only doubtful 
point is the date at which the change was made; but at any rate it was 
before the Christian era. 

(ii.) PoBovpevor tov Oedv and cveBdpuevor tov Oedv.—A somewhat 
similar situation arises with regard to the phrase doBovpevo. rdv Oedv or 
ocBopevor Tov Oedv. This has been the centre of a long and complicated 
discussion 1 of which the outcome is not clear as yet and perhaps never 
will be. 

The point at issue is to what extent PoBovpevor Tov Oedv is a technical 
description of the non-Jewish fringe attending the Synagogue, or is merely 
an honourable epithet applicable to Jew,. Gentile, or Proselyte, as the 
context may decide. 

1 See especially E. Schiirer, GJV. iii.4 p. 174, note 70, and Strack, ii. 
pp. 716 ff. 


The LXX.—The phrase oPovpevos or ve Bdpevos Tov Ocdv is the usual LXXx. 
rendering of jere adonai, which, as shown above (p. 82), is a common de- 
scription of good Israelites. But since the practically identical phrase jere 
shamaim was used in the Rabbinical literature to describe the ‘ pious 
Gentiles ’ who came to the Synagogue, it is obviously possible that the same 
meaning may have been earlier attached both to jere adonai and to its Greek 
equivalent. Many scholars are quite certain that this is so, and, by inter- 
preting poBovpevor tov Gedv whenever it occurs in the Psalms or elsewhere 
as a reference to the pious Gentiles, obtain much information as to the 
presence of a large class of this kind, not only in the Synagogues of the 
Diaspora but also in the Temple at Jerusalem. It is possible that there was 
such a class ; but this cannot be proved by reading a special meaning into 
poBovpmevos Tdv Oedv and then treating that meaning as evidence. 

Josephus.—Use has been made in this connexion of contra Apion. Josephus. 

ii. 10 and ii. 39, but nevertheless these two passages, though they indicate 
the growth of proselytism among the Jews, do not make use of the phrase 
in question, and the only important one is Antig. xiv. 7. 2 Oavydaoryn Se 
pndeis, et TorodTos Hv TAOVTOS Ev TH yueTepy lepG TavTwY TOV KaTa THY 
oikoupévnv lovoatwv kat oeBopévwv tov Oedv, ere 8& Kal trav dd THs 
*Acias Kai ths Kipdays cis aitd cuppepdvTwv éx ToAAGY rdévU Xpdvev. 
But unfortunately the technical meaning which has been seen in this 
passage is based on a wrong translation. Jacob Bernays, followed by Emil 
Schiirer, says that Josephus appeals not only to the rich offerings of Jews 
throughout the world but also to those of the God-fearers, but the Greek 
surely makes it plain that ceBouéevwv tdv Gedy is a further description 
of those who are called “Iovéaiwy, and xai connects it with xara tiv 
oikovpévnv, so that the meaning of the whole phrase is ‘all the Jews 
worshipping God throughout the world.’ Bernays’ interpretation would 
require a Tov before ceBopevwv. It is of course true that Josephus 
cannot be trusted to be conventional on small points of Greek grammar, 
but in this case the supposition that he is observing its rules gives a 
perfectly good sense. He is not distinguishing between Jews and God- 
fearers any more than he is distinguishing between tov Kata tiv 
oikovpévnv and those from Asia and Europe. 

In Acts.—The following passages contain the phrases under discussion : Acts. 

(a) x. 1pf. avip 5€ Tis €v Kawapeig ovdpare KopvijAwos, €kaTOV- 
TapXNS €k oreipas Tis kaAoupevns *"IraXixns, edoeBis Kat poBodvevos 
Tov Gedy ody Tayri TQ otkw avro. 

(b) x. 22 dvnp Sixaos kal poBovpevos rdv Oedv. 

(c) x. 35 GAN év ravri €Ovee 6 poBodpevos avrdv Kal epyafdpuevos 
Sixatorivnv Sexrds ado eoriv. 

(d) xiii. 16 avdpes “IopanAcirat Kat of oPotpevor. tdv Oedv, 

(e) xiii. 26 dvdpes adedcpoi, viol yévous “ABpadp, ot év tiv poBov- 
pevor Tov Gedy, Huiv 6 Adyos Tis cwTnpias tabrns efareoTaAn. 

(f) xiii. 43 Avdeions S& THs cvvaywy7s nKoobInrav moAXol tev 
‘lovdaiwy kat tév ceBopevwv tpoondrAtTov TH LatAm cal tH BapvaBg, 

or God- 


oitwes mporAaXotytes avrois ereMov aitods mpocpévery TH Xa puTe 
Tov Oeod. 

(9) xiii. 50 of 5€ *Iovdator rapwtpuvav tas oeBopévas yuvaikas Tas 
evoxjpovas Kal Tovs mpwTous THS TéAEwS Kal Eriyerpav Swwypodv emt 
tov IlatAov kat BapvaBav, cai €€éBadov adbrodvs dard Tov dpiwv. 

(h) xvi. 14 Kai tis yuvt) dvépare Aviia, roppupdrwdis moAews 
Ovareipwv ceBopévyn Tdv Oedv, HKover. 

(t) xvii. 4 kal twes e€ avtav ereicOnocav Kat mporexAnpwOnoav 
Tt) IlatAm kat Leila, tov re ceBopevwv “EAAjvov wAHOos woAd 
yvvatkav Te TOV TPdTwV OvK dALyaL. 

(k) xvii. 17 SveAeyero pev odv év TH Tvvaywyy Tots *lovdaious Kat 
tois weBopévors Kal év TH Gyopa Kata Tacav Hyépav mpds Tors 
Tapatvy XavovTas. 

(1) xviii. 7 kat peraBas exeiOev HrAOev eis oikiav Tivds dvdpare 
Tiriov lovtarov oeBopévov tdv Oedv. 

It is strange that poBovpevor tov Oedv is characteristic of the first 
half of Acts, and o<Bopevor (Tov Oedv) of the second. Is this connected 
with the sources of Acts? (See H. J. Cadbury, Making of Lwuke-Acts, 
p. 225, for other possibilities.) 

On the basis of these passages the theory has been erected that in Acts 
poBovpevos Tov Oedv should be translated ‘ God-fearer,’ as though it meant 
that the person so described belonged to a recognized separate class in the 
Synagogue. It has been a serious question whether to adopt this in the 
translation in Vol. IV., but in the end I decided not to do so, because it 
seems to me that though in some cases an excellent meaning is obtained in 
this way, in others it probably reads into the text more than the writer 
intended. That Gentiles came to the Synagogues is undoubted, and that 
they were called ‘ God-fearing’ persons is natural, but they were not a 
‘clearly defined group parallel to Jews and proselytes. 

The first of the two strongest instances in support of the theory men- 
tioned is the group of passages in chapter x. referring to Cornelius, who was 
certainly neither a Jew nor a proselyte but is described as oBovpevos Tov 
Ocdv. Does this mean that he belonged to a special class of persons who 
are designated as God-fearers, or merely that he was a pious man who 
worshipped the true God? Similarly, in chapter xiii. the phrase ‘Men of 
Israel and those who fear God’ may mean Israelites and non-Israelites who 
fear God, but the passage gives almost as good a sense and is quite as 
accurately rendered if Israelites and God-fearers be regarded as two adjec- 
tives applied to the same persons. The scene is the synagogue in Pisidian 
Antioch. Paul is speaking at the request of the rulers of the synagogue, and 
the introductory phrase may well be merely a reference to the Jews and 
proselytes who are present. It should be noted in passing that a proselyte 
is in Jewish thought quite as much an Israelite as a born Jew. Verse 26 
is a somewhat stronger example: ‘“‘ Men and brethren, sons of the race of 
Abraham, and those among you who fear God.” It is obviously possible 
that ‘those who fear God’ are treated as part of those of the race of 
Abraham—* and I appeal especially to those among you who are most 
interested in religion.” But the ‘among you’ rather suggests that ‘ those 


who fear God ’ is contrasted with the sons of Abraham—‘ you’ is the whole 
congregation, ‘sons of Abraham’ are the Jews, ‘ those who fear God’ are 
Greeks who worship in the Synagogue but are not proselytes. The prob- 
ability seems on this side, but the passage is not enough to prove that 
poBovpevor tdv Oedv would have meant this if the context had not 
suggested it. 

The same applies to xvi. 14 Kai tis yuv7) dvépate Avdia, roppupdrwdts 
moXews Ovateipwv ceBopevn Tdv Oedv, }Kovev, which would naturally be 
rendered ‘‘ a certain woman named Lydia, a purple-seller of the city of 
Thyatira, attending the service, listened.” oePopévy Tov Gedv is a perfectly 
natural phrase to describe Lydia’s presence in the synagogue, or tpowevyx7, 
though of course if it were proved that it was the name of a special class it 
could be interpreted in that way. In the same way in xvii. 4 obviously 
tov ceBopevov ‘EXXAjvwv can quite naturally be rendered ‘ the Greeks who 
were worshipping.’ It is of course quite possible, and indeed probable, that 
the word ‘ Greeks’ implies the presence of those who were neither Jews nor 
proselytes but taking part in the worship of the synagogue. But the point 
is that it is quite unnecessary to regard o¢@dpevor as a technical term for 
this class. xvii. 17 is a stronger example, and in any case illustrates how 
easily oi oeBdouevor might have become technical. The phrase might be 
rendered ‘ he argued in the synagogue with the Jews and the worshippers,’ 
and by implication some at least of the worshippers were not Jews; but 
it is clear that this meaning is given to of weSdpevou by the context. 
It may be illustrated by asking a question. Supposing that the Greek ran 
Suehéyero ev TH cvvaywyy Tots ceBopévors, should we be justified in 
saying that Tots ceBopevors is a technical term for non-Jewish worshippers, 
or could we translate ‘ he argued with the worshippers,’ without differen- 
tiating between Jews and Greeks ? Formerly I thought that the first view 
was right, but I now incline to the second. 

Finally, xviii. 7 gives the other piece of evidence for the technical 
use of the phrase, comparable in force to those in the story of the centurion 
Cornelius. Justus is referred to as oeGdpuevos tov Oedv, which seems to 
mean an attendant at the synagogue. If this is not a technical use 
implying that he is neither a heathen nor a proselyte, it comes very 
near it. The question is not so much what the phrase actually means in 
this context as what it might have meant in a different one. Could Luke 
have referred to Jews frequenting the synagogue at Corinth as veBdpevor 
tov Oedv? Or had the phrase become so stereotyped that it could only 
be used of non-Jewish worshippers ? I cannot see that there is sufficient 
evidence in Acts itself to justify a confident answer to the question. It 
should be remembered that the question affects the use of words rather than 
the facts of history. There is no reason whatever to doubt that there were 
non-Jews who went to the synagogue. It is so intrinsically probable that 
the onus probandi would be on those who maintained the opposite. The 
question is merely whether fPoBovpevos Tov Oedv and ceBdopevos Tov Oedv 
were technical terms to describe this class and whether it had a recog- 
nized status in Judaism. In favour of such a theory is the fact that the 
words are applied at least most often to this class in Acts. Against it is 




the fact that they are perfectly well-known Old Testament phrases which 
do not bear any technical meaning. 

These passages show that doPovpevor Tov Gedy and oeBopevor Tov Oedv 
were used as appropriate phrases to describe those who though non-Jews 
believed in the monotheistic God of the Jews and possibly attended the 
synagogue. Such non-Jews are often spoken of by modern Jewish theo- 
logians as ‘ the pious Gentiles,’ and it is held that they will inherit the Life 
of the World to come though they will not share in the glories of the 
Messianic time. But the reason why these words were used was because 
they were appropriate to a vague class, not because they were the recog- 
nized title limited to a specific group with a definite place in organized 
Judaism. The epithets by themselves could have been given to a pious 
Jew, and it is only when they are applied to a non-Jew that the context 
gives them a peculiar meaning. It must always be a question whether 
hoBeicGa. or céBerOar tov Gedv means that a Gentile was inclined to 
accept Jewish theology or whether it should be translated more generally. 
For instance, I think that in Acts xviii. 7 reBdpevos Tov Oedv is certainly in- 
tended to imply that Justus was an attendant at the Synagogue, but that 
in xvii. 4 Tov ceBopévwv “EAAjvwv means the Greeks who were actually 
worshipping on the occasion when Paul was speaking in the Synagogue. 

That oeBopevos need not always refer to a non-Jew is shown by 
xiii. 48. The writer says Avfeions S€ THs TuVvaywyns HKoAobOnoav 
ToAAol tov "loviaiwy Kat tov oeBopévwv rporndAtTwv 7H IlavrAw Kal 
Tt) Bapvado. The phrase of o¢Bdpevor rpoojAvro has naturally been 
a difficulty to those who regard oi o¢Gdevor as meaning a class who were 
not proselytes, and it has been contended that proselytes is an inter- 
polation, but in reality the difficulty is entirely due to following a fixed 
idea rather than the meaning of the Greek, which is ‘ many of the Jews 
and the proselytes who were worshipping.’ There is no suggestion that 
the word has a technical sense. 

(iii.) Evidence for the Existence of Syncretistic Cults on a Basis of Judaism 

In a paper?! printed in a volume published in honour of Theodor 
Mommsen’s 60th birthday in 1877, Jacob Bernays wrote an article on 
‘Die Gottesfiirchtigen bei Juvenal’ (republished in Usener’s edition of 
Gesammelte Abhandlungen von Jacob Bernays, vol. ii. pp. 71 ff.). In this 
he began with a discussion of a famous passage in Juvenal xiv. 96 ff. : 

quidam sortiti metuentem sabbatapatrem 

nil praeter nubes et coeli numen adorant, 

nec distare putant humana carne suillam 

qua pater abstinuit ; mox et praeputia ponunt. 
Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges 
Iudaicum ediscunt et servant ac metuunt ius 
tradidit arcano quodcumque volumine Moyses. 

1 This paper might equally well have been dealt with in the last section, but 
it is so closely connected with the further development of research in another 
direction that the present arrangement seemed better. 


The general meaning is plain: the father observes the Sabbath and 
abstains from pork, and does not otherwise observe the Law, but the son 
becomes a full proselyte. Most commentators saw nothing more in the 
passage, but Bernays fastened on a suggestion of John Selden (De ture 
naturali et gentium, iii. c. 18, g. A) that metuentes means Judaizing Romans. 
Of course it is clear that this is the meaning of the passage in Juvenal, but 
Bernays amplified the suggestion that metuentem is an odd word to use with 
sabbata in line 96 or with ius in line 101. He thinks that it must be used 
technically and in the same way in which the rabbis used jere shamaim. 
To support this conclusion he quoted the following inscription from CIL. 
v. 1, no. 88, p. 18: 






7. 2 

The translation of this is clearly ‘‘ Aurelius Soter and Aurelius Stephanus, 
her sons, erected this to Aurelia Soteria their mother, a most pious fearer 
of the Jewish religion.” Bernays thought it plain that Soteria was a 
Jewess, and here he is doubtless right, but if so, metwens does not here 
mean a half-proselyte. 

In the Gesammelte Abhandlungen of Bernays, the editor, H. Usener, usener. 

added another inscription from the Hphemeris Epigraphica, iv., 1881, 
p. 291, no. 838: 






He thinks that metuenti must here also be taken as meaning a semi- 
proselyte to Judaism, but adds that another inscription in the CJL. vi. 1, 
no. 390, p. 73, domini metuens I(ovi) O(ptimo) M(aximo) libens) m(erito) 

sacr(um), cannot be so explained. Twenty years later Emil Schiirer read Schiirer. 

to the Berlin Academy (SAB., 1897, pp. 200 ff.) a paper entitled ‘Die Juden 
im bosporanischen Reiche und die Genossenschaften der o¢eBopevor Oedv 
tywortov ebendaselbst.? He accepted Bernays’ position, though Usener’s 
additional evidence ought surely to have made him hesitate. How does he 
know that Aemilius Valens was interested in Judaism ? Simply because he 
is already convinced that metwens implies Judaism. It surely somewhat 
resembles arguing in a circle. And so far from its being true that the 
second inscription cannot be used, it is really an extremely important piece 
of evidence which shows that metwens does not necessarily mean an ad- 
herent or semi-adherent of the Jewish religion, which is completely ruled 
out of court by the reference to Jupiter. The obvious meaning of the word 
is ‘religious’ or ‘God-fearing’ in the sense in which that word might be used 
of pious members of any religion. The same thing may be said of further 



inscriptions which Schiirer quotes, namely—Larciae Quadrati[llae natione] 
Romanae metue[nti] (CIL. vi. 29759); Dis Manib. Maianiae homerididae 
(1. deum ?) maetuenti (CIL. vi. 29760) ; [De]um metuens (CJL. vi. 29763) ; 
[fidel]is metu[ens] (CL. viii. 4321). 

Tt is clear that there is nothing in these to prove that they refer to 
the Jews exclusively, and the reference to Dis manibus indicates heathen 
rather than Jewish divinities.1 The general impression formed on my 
mind by going through the evidence and reading the inscriptions quoted 
is that there is no reason whatever to think that metuentes means more 
than ‘ religious.’ In this sense it is clearly used, but the specific religion 
must in each case be determined from the context. In the first inscrip- 
tion which Bernays quotes, it obviously is Jewish. In the one which 
refers to Iupiter Optimus Maximus it clearly is not. In all the other 
cases the context is ambiguous and the person referred to may be either 
Jew or Gentile. : 

Schiirer then discussed the inscriptions from the kingdom of Bosporu 
north of the Black Sea which had been published by Latyschev in 
Inscriptiones antiquae orae septentrionalis Ponti Euxini graecae et latinae, 
vol. ii. (Inscriptiones regni Bosporant), Petropoli, 1890. These inscriptions 
are so important, and owing to their connexion at the beginning of Schiirer’s 
article with the ocBdpevo. of Acts have so often been interpreted in a 
manner which goes beyond what Schiirer himself says, that it is desirable 
to give their texts in full, especially since neither the Proceedings of the 
Berlin Academy nor Latyschev’s Inscriptiones are easily accessible, except 
in large libraries. 

(i.) [Latyschev, vol. ii. no. 52 (=CIG. vol. ii. p. 1005, Addenda no. 
2114”), from Pantikapaeum, dated a.p. 81.] 

Bactrebovros Baothéws Ti Be- 
plov lovXiov “PyoKovrdpidos duXo- 
kaivapos Kal piropwpaiov, evore- 
Bots, érous for’ pnvds Hepes ri]- 
ov 18’ Xpyori yvviy tpdre- 
pov Apotcou ddeinus ext ris [xpo]- 
cevx ns Opertov pov “HpaxAav 
eAedepov xabdragé Kara edx7[v] 
pov averiAnrrov Kal dra p}evd- 
XAnrov ard ravrds KAnpovopl ov] 
Fe lptaiernas avrov drov av Bov- 
1 Though there is some evidence for the use of Dis Manibus or D.M.S. in 
Jewish and Christian inscriptions (cf. CJL. vi. 29760, viii. 7530). But this is 

part of the later survival of heathen language (cf. Deo Optimo Maximo). 
Would it have been customary in the first century ? 


Anrlae dverikwAtrws Kabas e[d]- 
Edunv, xwpts is z[)]v rpolo lev- 
X7V Owreias Te Kal tpockal pre]- 
|p]joew[s], cvvervvevodvtwv dé 
kal TOV xAnpvdpeov pov “Hpa- 
kXei[So]u kat “EAtkwviddos, 
ovve| rit |poreotons dé kai T7[s] 

cuwaywy7|[s] tov “lovdaiwr. 


(ii.) [Latyschev, vol. ii. n. 53 (=Corp. Inser. Graec. vol. ii., Addenda 
no. 2114°), from Pantikapaeum.] 


[eis THVv| TpooevyxX7V Owrrei| a]s [Te kat 7 poo- | 

[apt lepjoeos ovv[e|rurpore[ vovons | 

[S€ xa]i ths cvvaywy[js] TO[v] 

*Tovdai [wv]. 

(iii.) [Latyschev, vol. ii. no. 400, from Gorgippia (the present Anapa), 

dated a.p. 41.] 

Ged tWictw. TavTo- 
Kpatopt ebdoynt@, Ba- 
otAevovtos BactXeé- 

ws [IloA€pwvos] frdo- 
yeppalvi|cov Kat prrordar- 
pioos, érovs HAT’, pn- 

vos Aeiov, 1600s =r- 
[pd]rwvos avéOnkev 

THe [wpoo jevxHe Kar’ edx[7)]- 
v Oplerriy éavrod 7 dvo- 
pa X[plica, ef @ 7 avera- 
gos kal dvernpéac ros] 

amd mavtds KAnpov| 6p. |- 

ov bd Ata, I'jv, “HAvo[r]. 

(iv.) [Latyschev, vol. ii. no. 401, from Gorgippia (Anapa).] 

[Geo wh ]io[ rp rav]- 
[roxpét opt eddAo[ yy ]- 


[r]o° BarsAcbovr[os] 
Bactréws TiBepiov Te 
ovAiov edt LYavpopa- 
Tov, pirokaioapos kal du- 
Acpwpaior, cio Boids, 
Teepdbeos Nupa- 
yépov Maxapiov abv 
adeApis "HAsos yv- 
vatkds NavoBada- 
pdbpov Kara edxiVv 
tatpos nuav Nup-. 
daydpov Maxapiov 
deiopev TV Oper- 
[rHv jpov Alwpéav 
[The rest is lacking.] 

(v.) [Latyschev, vol. ii. no. 449, from Tanais.] 
Ged. [dpiorwr] 
BacrAebovros BlacAéws TiBepiov] 
*Iovdtov ‘Pyokovrd[pidos fidoKat]- 
gapos kat prropwp[aiov, edaeBors], 
iorowuntot ddeAo[t ceBdpuevor] 
[O<d]v turrov av[éornoay tov] 
teAapova evy[pdavres Eavtav] 
Td, Ovouara. 
An illegible list of names follows. 
(vi.) [Latyschev, vol. ii. no. 452, from Tanais, dated a.p. 228.] 
[Ayah |e TOXN 
Og SWiory Ax 
BaorAedbovr[os] Baorr€ ws TiBepiov] 
[TJovAiov [Ké]rvos giAoKalirapos] Kat du- 
[Acpwpaio}v evoe Bods, eiorountot 

ad[eApot cleBdpuevor Oedv troy, 

éevyp[ dav jes eavTOv [r]a dvopara 
[wlept mpeoBirepov M[....... | ‘H- 
pax[AeiSJov «at “Apiorwva [M]everrpdrov xai KaAdi- 
yléevn]v Mu[pwlvos, "ArAcEiwva Tlarpéxdov, Eiruxeavds. 
[A list of names follows; at the end is the date.] 
Ev t@ ex’ Ever, Topriaiov a. 

These inscriptions prove several things : 

(i.) That in the kingdom of Bosporus the custom of manumitting a Conclusions. 
slave by handing him over to a temple had been extended to the Jewish 
synagogue just as it was transferred later on to the church. (See especially 
Mitteis, Reichsrecht und Volksrecht in den Gstlichen Provinzen des rémischen 
Kaiserreichs, pp. 374 ff.) 

(ii.) The phrase Geds tyucros was commonly used in this country, but 
the association of the word in the sentence in the third inscription with 
Zeus, Ge, and Helios shows that the phrase was not used exclusively by 
Jews. This of course was at once seen by Schiirer, and he therefore made 
the suggestion that in the kingdom of Bosporus there was a syncretistic 
cult of the Most High God which had been produced by the influence of 
Jewish missionaries. The population had accepted part of their preaching 
but not all of it, and produced a sect which was neither completely 
Jewish nor completely heathen. 

(iii.) The word oe@devor is used in connexion with the title «ds 
tyros to describe the worshippers in this cult. 

Rather unfortunately, however, Schiirer went on to connect o<¢Bopevos 
in these passages with the oeGdpevos in the Jewish Synagogues referred to 
in Acts. Of course the verb is the same in both places and means ‘ worship,’ 
but that does not justify the assumption that the persons referred to were 
worshipping in the same way. Nor does the fact that this sect in Bosporus 
had originally been inspired by the teaching of the Synagogue prove that 
they had necessarily continued to be on good terms with the Jews who 
had first taught them. The history of Christianity is a proof to the 

After Schiirer’s article, but during the same year, F. Cumont published Cumont. 
in the Supplément @ la Revue de l Instruction publique en Belgique, 1897, an 
illuminating article on ‘Hypsistos’ which was also issued separately. It is 
very hard to obtain, but the contents are given in the article on ‘ Hypsistos’ 
in Pauly-Wissowa. This article brings together the chief evidence for the 
use of 6 tiers as the Greek name of Jahweh, not only by Jews themselves, 
but also by Gentiles who worshipped him but did not accept Judaism. 

In classical Greek tyros is one of the less frequent epithets of Zeus, éy.oros. 
but in the Semitic world it was used to render the name of the God Eliun, 
yby, well known in the Old Testament as the God of Melchizedek (God 
Most High). He was the God of the vault of heaven, whose relation in 
Phoenician mythology to Baal Shammim—the Balsamem of Plautus (Poen. 
1027)—is not quite clear. Eliun survived in Judaism as a title for his 

The bearing 
of these 
on Acts, 


former rival Jahweh,? and later on, in non-Israelite Semitic theology, under 
the influence of. astrology and Mazdaism he became the Supreme God, who 
lives in the highest sphere of heaven, whence he governs the stars, and 
through them rules the events of earth. In Greek he was called 6 tyros. 

Among the Jews of the Diaspora 6 tyurros became afavourite method of 
referring to Jahweh, and was used by Gentiles in speaking of the God of the 
Jews (cf. Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, 23, 40, M. ii. p. 569, 592, and In Flaccum 7, 
M. ii. p. 524). It was so used by Celsus, and when Julian in the fourth 
century gave the Jews permission to build a temple in Jerusalem, he spoke 
of it as for Tov bYuorrov. (See also above, p. 193.) 

Thus two streams of religious thought tended to use the name 6 dyueros 
to describe a monotheistic God—Judaism, and a Semitic variant of the 
current astralism. These two might easily be confused in popular thought. 
Similarly this ‘ highest God’ might easily be identified with the chief god 
of any locality. Thus it is not surprising that in Palmyra there are many 
inscriptions to Zeus byuoros, wéyirtos Kal érjKkoos—a formula which finds 
an echo in Semitic inscriptions as ““ The God whose name be praised for 
ever, the Good, the Compassionate,” and still lives on in the formula of 
Islam. dtiuwros is also found in Syria to denote Attis. 

In the mixed theology of these monotheistic cults the supreme God, 
6 byworos Oeéds, is dyévnros, he is the Creator and Governor of the Universe, 
but he has many ministers of his power, the Sun, Mithras, and a host of 
angels, and Hermes conducts to him the souls of the pure (Diogenes 
Laertius viii. 1. 31). 

The Bosporus inscriptions clearly represent a cult of this nature—that 
much is demonstrated by Schiirer and Cumont. The references to Jews 
and to a zpoaevx7 show that Judaism was a strong element, and the 
tyros Geds so often mentioned is doubtless Jahweh. But the mention of 
Zeus, Ge, and Helios shows that it was not a purely Jewish Synagogue. 
Moreover, it does not necessarily follow that all these inscriptions should be 
grouped together. The first two, which refer to a cvvaywy/ of the Jews, 
but not to the Jeds tWioros, may well belong to a purely Jewish Synagogue, 
the third clearly belongs to a syncretistic cult; and as this inscription is the 
first to speak of the Oeds yuwrros there is a presumption that inscriptions 
v. and vi., which do the same, belong to the same cult. 

But what is the bearing of this on the meaning of o¢Beo@ai in Acts ? 
In the inscriptions o¢Sdpevos is used in Nos. v. and vi. (the reconstruction of 
v. is rendered certain by vi.), but it is not a technical term for a Gentile who 
was attending a Jewish Synagogue and thinking seriously about becoming 
a proselyte, nor does it in the least suggest the tendency, which Juvenal de- 
plores, for Romans to become strict members of the Synagogue. I imagine 
that ciorountot ddeAot re Bdpevor Oedv tivorov means ‘initiated brethren, 
worshippers of God Most High.’ There is nothing technical here about 

1 The Maccabees, perhaps taking the title from Melchizedek, call themselves 
on their coins ‘ priests of God most high,’ and R. H. Charles thinks that ‘ most 
high God’ became a popular usage in the second century B.c. among the 
admirers of the Maccabees (cf. Jubilees) and was avoided by their ss ate 
(cf. Enoch 37-70 and Pss. Solom.). 


oéBer Gat, and even if the inscription had referred to a real Synagogue, all 
that could have been said is that eio7ounroi means ‘ proselytes,’ and a 
proselyte was by definition not a Gentile still thinking about proselytism. 
In this case, too, c¢BerOat cannot be a technical term. 

The most important contribution of these inscriptions and of Cumont’s Acts xvi. 17. 
work for the understanding of Acts is really in another direction. In Acts 
xvi. 17 the slave who had a ‘ python-spirit’ said that the Apostles were 
the servants of the Geds iyioros. Does that mean the God of the Jews, or 
is it not more likely that it refers to the Geds tyioros of a syncretistic cult? 
It would be a very natural conclusion for anyone who recognized that the 
Apostles were preaching the God of the Jews and the morality of the Jews 
but not the Jewish Law or customs. 

The survival of these syncretistic cults having their origin in Gentile Survivals of 
attendants at the Synagogue can be traced down to the fifth century. adie: 

Gregory Nazianzenus? and Gregory of Nyssa* both refer to worshippers 
of Hypsistos, though one (the Nazianzene) calls them tyurdpror and the 
other vyrrvavo’. They recognized only one God, rejected images and 
sacrifices, but revered Fire and Light; refused circumcision, but observed 
the Sabbath and part of the food-law. 

Similarly Cyril of Alexandria‘ speaks of a similar sect in Egypt called 
OeooeBeis, and finally the Codex Theodosianus * mentions the suppression 
of a cult of Coelicolae in Africa in A.D.408-409. Theodosius merely knew that 
they ought to be suppressed, qui nescio cuius dogmatis novi conventus habent, 
but they may have been an old sect similar to the Hypsistarii of Cappadocia. 
Schiirer, Cumont, and Kriiger take this view. But it seems doubtful to me, 
for Augustine in Lpist. 44 (al. 163). 13, says Miseramus ad maiorem Coelt- 
colarum quem audieramus novi apud eos baptismi institutorem exstitisse et 
multos illo sacrilegio seduxisse,etc. This at least suggests that their baptism 
was a new thing, though Augustine does not say that the sect was. After 
all, no century is immune from new cults. 

The Coelicolae are peculiarly interesting to the textual critic because in 
two places (Acts xiii. 50 and xvii. 4) Codex Bezae renders o«Bdpevos by 
caelicolae. Is this a hint of the African affinities of the Latin of this manu- 
script? It seems an interesting indication of judgement on the part of the 
translator as to the meaning of o«(dpevos, and the nature of the caelicolae. 

Whether the Massaliani of Epiphanius ° is another example of the same 
kind is more doubtful. 

1 A similar cult with another name has been pointed out by Cumont in his \ 
‘Les Mystéres de Sabazius et le Judaisme’ in Comptes Rendus of the Académie 
des Inscriptions, 1906, pp. 63 ff., and ‘A propos de Sabazius et du Judaisme 
in the Musée Belge, xiv. (1910) pp. 56 ff. He shows that there was a @lacos 
ceBac.avéds which was a combination of the Thracian cult of Sebazios with 
that of Jahweh Sabaoth. 

2 Or. xviii. 5; P.G. xxxv. 990 ff. 

3 Contra Eunomium, ii.; P.G. xlv. 484. 

* De adoratione in spiritu et veritate, iii.; P.G. Ixviii. 282. 

5 xvi. 5. 43 (408) and xvi. 8. 19 (409). 

8 Haer. xxx. 2. 


The evolu- 
tion of the 
meaning of 

The O.T. 


The results of this investigation may be summarized thus: 

(i.) In the Diaspora there was a rather wide circle of Gentiles who were 
interested in the teaching and practice of the Synagogue. To distinguish 
them from other Gentiles they were called “‘ (the Gentiles) who fear or wor- 
ship God.” But ‘those who fear God’ was not a title exclusively appro- 
priated to this type of Gentile. It could also have been used of pious 
Israelites, and ‘ those who worship’ (of o¢Bdpuevor), while an appropriate 
description for these Gentiles, could also be used in a perfectly simple sense 
of anyone, Jew or Gentile, who was in point of fact worshipping in the 

(ii.) These Gentiles tended to go in one of three ways: 

(a) Some of them became proselytes and were absorbed into the 

(b) Some of them developed an eclectic monotheism of their own. 
A common form of this was called the worship of the ‘ Most 
High’ (6 tyros Oeds). Some of them, at least, took over 
many Jewish customs, but rejected circumcision. Com- - 
munities of this kind survived until the fifth century. 

(c) Some of them became Christians. 

Nore IX. Tua Hoty Spreir 
By Krrsopr Lake 

A necessary preliminary to any discussion of the meaning of the Holy 
Spirit in Acts is a brief statement of the evolution of thought by which 
‘Spirit’ reached the meaning which it had at the time that Acts was 
written. It is clearly impossible to treat this question fully in this place. 
To do so would require a volume. On the other hand it seems undesirable 
to leave the matter wholly undiscussed in this note. The subject at first 

sight obviously falls into two divisions—Jewish and Greek—and each of 

these into the two subdivisions of educated and uneducated thought. But 
speaking generally the extremes meet. The most educated Jewish thought 
is much nearer educated Greek thought than it is to uneducated thought 
in its own nation, and there is a noticeable similarity between uneducated 
Jewish and uneducated Greek thought ; so that it is impossible to organize 
any statement so as to fall within these divisions without suggesting a 
sharpness of distinction which the facts do not justify. 

The Spirit in the Old Testament.—The Hebrew word most generally 
rendered by wvetywa in the LXX is ‘ruach’ (nm). Another word is 
‘“neshama’ (nw), but even if this were not originally a synonym for 
‘ruach’ it must have been so for the makers of the LXX, and it is to be 
remembered that to the student of the New Testament it is rvedya in the 
LXX, not ‘ruach’ in the Hebrew, which is important. 

‘Ruach’ is primarily ‘ breath.’ The opposite to it is ‘flesh.’ Spirit and 
flesh are both related to life, but in different ways. ‘Flesh’ is alive, but 


not of itself. Its life is given to it by ‘ Spirit,’ which is (worovotv. A corpse 
has Flesh, but not Spirit; therefore it is dead, not alive. On the other 
hand there are beings which are alive, but have only Spirit without Flesh. 
Such are angels and demons. And to those who, like the Israelites, thought 
of the gods as essentially anthropomorphic, it was naturally obvious that 
a god had ‘ruach’ or breath. 

The origin of Spirit or Breath in men and animals is not often discussed 
in the Old Testament. But the one outstanding exception to this rule is 
important in the history of both Jewish and Christian thought. In the 
portions of Genesis ascribed by critics to J, the Breath of the Lord is the 
special source of human life. ‘“‘ The Lord God formed man of the dust of 
the ground and évedionoev cis TO mpdcwrov aitovd mvonv (wis, Kal 
eyéveTo 6 avOpwros eis Yuyx7v (@cav” (Gen. ii. 7). Thus human life is 
akin to divine life; both God and man have the same ‘ breath.’ The 
comment of Philo (see pp. 100 f.) is proof that to Hellenistic Jews rvo7jv was 
synonymous with rvevpa. 

The Spirit or the Breath of God was regarded in ancient times as the 
instrument by which God worked. Through it God influenced and con- 
trolled the heroic figures of the Old Testament. It was, for instance, when 
the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah that he attacked the children 
of Ammon (Judges xi. 29), and it was when the Spirit of the Lord came 
upon Samson that he slew a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass 
(Judges xv. 14 ff.). 

The Judges. 

An alternative figure was to speak of the ‘Arm of the Lord.’ But The Arm of 
whereas ‘ Arm of the Lord’ is only rarely distinguished from the Lord ‘® 4°" 

himself (see, however, Is. lxiii. 5), the ‘ Spirit of the Lord’ was frequently 
distinguished so completely from God that it was almost if not quite 
regarded as an angelic being. In this respect it is interesting to note that 
the reverse process can be seen in the history of the phrase ‘ Angel of the 
Lord.’ Originally the Angel of the Lord was doubtless a celestial messenger, 
distinct from Jahveh, but later on, perhaps under the influence of mono- 
theistic thought and of the dislike of the direct mention of God, ‘ the 
Angel of the Lord’ was used as a synonym for God himself (see Judges 
vi. 11 ff.). 

But the age of the Judges or Heroes belonged to a distant past. In Prophets. 

later times the Spirit of the Lord worked through Prophets rather than 
through Judges, and the prophetic gift was so closely identified with the 
Spirit that it overshadowed everything else. It was during this period, 
represented by the historical books, that the personification of ‘ Spirit,’ 
mentioned above, was at its height. The classical example of this anthro- 
pomorphic visualization is 1 Kings xxii. 5 ff., in which the prophets speak 
before Ahab and Jehoshaphat, and Micaiah explains that it is due to the 
influence of a Spirit sent by the Lord to deceive the prophets. Inasmuch 
as the Spirit in question is represented as discussing with God the way in 
which he can deceive Ahab, it is clear that Spirit is here almost equivalent 
to an angel. Nevertheless the change is not complete, for the lying 
Spirit is regarded as inspiring all the prophets simultaneously, not merely 
speaking to them. 
VOL. V i 


a ee It should be noted that in the Old Testament the phrase ‘ Holy 
dey Spirit’ is veryrare. It is found only in Psalm li. 11; Is. lxiii. 10 f. ; Sirach 
xlviii. 12 (in Cod. A); Susanna 45 (Theod.); Wisdom i. 5, ix. 17. It is 
_somewhat more frequent in the pseudepigraphic literature, for instance 
Jubilees i. 21 and i. 23, xxv. 14; and in the Ascension of Isaiah v. 14. 
This, however, is a relatively unimportant point. The fact that the Old 
Testament speaks of the Spirit of God while the New Testament and the 
later literature use another phrase does not reflect change in doctrine, but 

merely illustrates the tendency to avoid using the word God. 
Moreover, in the rather vague metaphysics of the Old Testament it is 
difficult to draw any sharp line between angels and such phrases as a 
‘Spirit of jealousy’ or a ‘ Spirit of wisdom.’ Did the writers of the Old 
Testament regard a ‘ Spirit of jealousy’ as a ‘demon,’ or were they con- 
sciously personifying an abstract quality of disposition? This question 
has often been raised and answered, but never satisfactorily, for—as Con- 
stantine said of another controversy—the discussion depends on improper 
answers to questions which ought never to have been put. That generation 
did not distinguish clearly between persons and personifications, and to 
introduce distinctions which were not perceived is as bad exegesis as to 

leave them out when they were. 

Judaism. Jewish Thought.—In the period beginning after the close of the Old 
Testament, that is in the second century before Christ, the difference 
between educated and uneducated thought becomes clearly marked. This 
is not only because the influence of Greek thought affected the educated 
so much more than the uneducated classes, but also because the written 
sources at our disposal cover much more diverse types than are to be found 
—at least in such extremes—in the Old Testament, Roughly speaking, 
we have at our disposal for educated thought, though of very different types, 
the Rabbinic literature, Josephus and Philo; and for uneducated thought, 
the Apocalyptic literature and the Synoptic Gospels. 

The Spirit In the centuries which elapsed between the period of the Exile and 

and angels. ¢he Christian era, the requirements of monotheism modified the forms of 
thought. To that generation an angel might be never so exalted, but it 
was wholly distinct from God, and no part of God was actually an angel. 
Thus a heavenly visitor who brought a message to men was an angel, and 
the inspiration of a prophet was the ‘ Breath of God,’ yet the ‘ Breath of 
God’ was not an angel. But during this period the prophets ceased to 
exist. The communication of God with men was still carried on by his 
Breath or Spirit, but through Scripture, through the learning of scholars, 
and through the Voice from Heaven (Bat Qol), not through a ‘ Succession’ 
of inspired prophets. A further change in terminology can also be 
noted. The phrase ‘Spirit of God’ or ‘Spirit of Jahveh’ became less 
general, if not obsolete, and the Rabbis from the first century onwards 
spoke of the ‘ Holy Spirit’ or ‘Spirit of holiness’ when they referred 
to Scripture, and of the ‘Spirit of prophecy’ when they were alluding 
to the prophets. 

Inspiration The evidence of Rabbinical literature is generally clear, but not always. 

eee | ie Spirit spoke through the Prophets, not through the Rabbis. It now 


speaks only through the Scripture which is its written word. There are 
indeed a few exceptions to this rule, and some Rabbis, notably Akiba, 
are said to have received the Spirit. But against this view appears another 
tradition which merely says that these Rabbis were worthy of the Spirit, 
but their generation was not, so that they did not receive it. (See Strack, 
i. pp. 216 and 557, and Biichsel, Der Geist Gottes, p. 124.) Jewish author- 
ities are not clear which is the sounder view. Nor is there agreement 
among scholars whether the ‘ laying on of hands’ at the ordination con- 
veyed a ‘charisma’ of the Spirit, or merely recognized a function. The 
most reliable information on the teaching of the Rabbis can be found 
in Strack, ii. pp. 126 ff. and iv. pp. 435 ff. ‘‘ Die Inspiration der heiligen 
Schrift,” and in Moore, Judaism, i. pp. 421 f. 

The parallel of later Christianity is instructive. After the second 
century the Church insisted as firmly as did the Rabbis that the prophetic 
5.a50x7) was closed. But did it deny the presence of the Holy Spirit, or 
disclaim infallibility ? The facts are much clearer than the logic. 

With the Rabbinical literature Josephus may fairly be reckoned as re- Josephus. 
presenting educated, though not theologically educated, opinion. Josephus 
was an historian and a politician, not a philosopher or a theologian, and 
his writings may be taken as typical of the views of an educated layman; 
they ought not to be too closely compared or contrasted with the views of 
the professional theologians reported in the Talmud. 

His opinion about the Spirit world may be summed up thus: he be- 
lieved that the world is full of invisible beings who like men are good and 
bad. This is because they are the souls (yvyai) or spirits (tvevparta) of 
dead men.1 The wicked become devils (dSa:pdvia); the good become 
‘genii’ (Saiuwoves) or heroes (7jpwes).2 The ‘stuff,’ as it were, of which 
these supernatural beings were made was the same that makes human 
beings, and Josephus calls it mvevya and wvxi7, between which he 
apparently made no clear distinction. It is essentially, or in its origin, 
a part of God.® 

He clearly agreed that the Prophets as a d:a50\7 had come to an end. 
Nevertheless he regarded John Hyrcanus as a prophet (Antig. xiii. 10. 7 
and B.J. i. 2. 8). He explains that Hyrcanus was visited by a Spirit. 
(Sarpdviov), so that he knew all that was to happen (pndev TOv peAAdvTor | 
dyvoeiv), and he describes this as tpodyteia. The darudvov is clearly 
‘the Spirit,’ and Josephus is completely hypostatizing it—in fact, we may. 
fairly say that he regards it as an angel. He also claimed to foretell to 
Vespasian that he would be Emperor (B..J/. iii. 8. 3, 9, and iv. 10. 7). 

The Wisdom Literature and Philo—The Rabbis and Josephus must The Wisdom 
certainly be reckoned as educated opinion, but the Rabbis were not only "tt 
not influenced by Greek thought, but were opposed to it. Josephus was 
not so strongly opposed, but in theological matters he had learnt little 
from the Greeks. The situation is different when examination is made of 
the Wisdom literature, especially of course those parts which are only in 
Greek, and of the writings of Philo, which are in so many ways the cul- 

1 BJ. vii. 6. 3. 2 Bd. vie ls. 5s 3 BJ. iii. 8. 5. 



mination of the Wisdom literature. ‘The Spirit’ gradually merged more 
and more completely in the concept of Wisdom. Wisdom, says Solomon, is a 
pirdvOpwrov zrvevpa (i. 6), it makes men prophets,’ and gave Solomon all 
his knowledge, which in Jewish thought was certainly due to the ‘ Holy 
Spirit ’"—otherwise the writings of Solomon would not have been in the 
Canon of Scripture. Elsewhere he slightly modifies his phraseology, and 
speaks of Wisdom as possessing a . Spirit.’ “Oca TE OTL Kpurrd, he says 
in vii. ut ff., Kal eppavi} éyvor, n yap TaVvTwV Texvires edidage pe 
copia, ¢ €OTL yap év abtH iy hee VoEpov, dyvov, povoyeves a; . pba. be 
otoa TAVTO Sivarat Kat bévovra €V avTH TA TAVTA awvifer, Kat 
Kata yeveds eis Puxas éoias petaBaivoves pidovs Oeod Kat rpopiyras 

A similar view of Wisdom is found in Proverbs, and in Sirach in the 
description of the learned scribe (xxxix.), where among the rewards to 
those who spend their lives in the study of the Law of the Most High is 
€av KUpios 6 péeyas OeAjon rvetpate cvvécews eprrAnoOjoerar. It is 
therefore not peculiar to Greek as distinct from Hebrew writings. 

Thus for these writers inspiration is ‘Wisdom.’ Moreover, the descrip- 
tion of Wisdom (especially in Wisdom vii.) is strongly reminiscent of Stoic 
philosophy. The Jewish writers tremble on the verge of identifying 
Wisdom with the ethereal and penetrating—but still material—substance 
which the Stoics called rvevua. (See below, p. 103.) It would probably 
be a mistake to assume that these writers were students of Stoic philosophy 
at first hand, but they lived in a world which was permeated by it, just 
as the modern world is by evolutionary philosophy—even those who dis- 
agree with it constantly use its language, though, on the other hand, 
many who think they agree with it constantly abuse its terminology. 
Probably it is not wrong to say that the concept of Wisdom as Spirit, as an 
energizing substance, belongs to the Greek environment of the writers. 
The apparent—and quite occasional—suggestions of an hypostatizing of 
Wisdom or of the Spirit are largely only verbal, partly metaphorical, and 
partly an inheritance from an earlier world which was far more anthro- 
pomorphic, and thought of spirits—good or evil—as creatures rather 
than substances. 

To this class of Hellenistic Jews permeated with Stoic metaphysics 
belonged Philo, though in his case there is also a strongly-marked Platonic 
element. He explains ? that man is made up of earthly matter and divine 
avevpa, The ‘Mind’ (d:dvore) is essentially a piece of the divine substance 
—vetpa. Elsewhere* he explains that zvetua was one of the seven 
entities of the first creation—the ‘ ideal’ world of Platonism—described in 
Genesis i. The seven entities are Heaven, Earth, Space, Air, Water, 

1 What is the relation between this identification of the Spirit of the 
Prophets with Wisdom and its attribution to Solomon and the parallel story of 
his power over demons in Josephus, Ant. viii. 2.5? Was there a conscious 
effort on the part of the Wisdom literature to minimize the exorcistic power 
of Solomon? Both elements—learning and exorcism—are combined in 
Josephus’s account. 

2 Opif. mundi, 134 f. 8 Ibid. 28 f. 



avevpa, and Light. The wvevpa is ‘God’s’ Spirit, and is the source 
of life. 

The details of his doctrine of Spirit are complicated, difficult, and not 
always clearly consistent, but their discussion would go beyond the present 
purpose. For this it is sufficient to note that for Philo as for the Wisdom 
literature zvetdya is the divine substance which energizes the universe. 

The Apocalyptic Literature—For the development of uneducated fis Apo- 

thought among the Jews, this is almost our only source: it may indeed be iis a 
objected that it was not the work of uneducated writers, but ‘ uneducated ’ 
is a relative term, and means “ below the normal standard of education at 
the time referred to,” judged by the opinion of that age, not by that of ours. 
It is doubtful whether either the Rabbis or Philo would have regarded the 
book of Enoch as the product of educated men, or Johanan ben Zakkai 
would have accepted 4 Ezra. But in any case, whether the Apocalyptic 
literature be educated or uneducated, it has a perfectly clear theory, accord- 
ing to which evil spirits are the ghosts of the giants who were the offspring 
of angels and women. They had been drowned in the Noachian flood, but 
their spirits remained and endeavoured to return to the pleasures of flesh 
and blood by obsessing some human being.? 

It should be noted at this point that this general view of a world Mark. 
infected by evil spirits is also that of the Synoptic gospels. In Mark 
especially there is great emphasis on the power of Jesus, given also by him 
to his disciples, to cast out demons. It is true that the origin of the demons 
is not described, but no one who studies the parallels collected in the 
introduction to R. H. Charles’s Book of Enoch can doubt that, at least so 
far as demons are concerned, the ‘ Weltanschauung ’ of Mark is the same 
as that of Enoch. 

The Apocalyptic literature speaks frequently of ‘Spirits,’ and in Enoch. 
Enoch God is especially the ‘ Lord of Spirits.’ If these spirits are not 
angels, it is hard to say what they are. But the same book speaks con- 
stantly of the ‘ Spirit of Righteousness,’ the ‘ Spirit of Wisdom,’ etc., and in 
at least one place (lxii. 2) the Spirit of Righteousness inspires God himself. 
Similarly the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs are full of ‘ Spirits’ both The ime 
good and evil, and it is difficult to say whether they are Angels and Demons =" 
or personified feelings. But it is hard not to think that both Enoch and 
the writer of the Testaments lived in a world which was full of Spirits 
and that they explained the facts of human nature, its passions, its 
achievements, and its sins, as due to obsession. This is as typical of the 
Apocalyptic literature as the identification of Spirit with divine substance 
is of the Hellenistic literature. Just as the Wisdom literature is clearly 
influenced by Greek thought, the Apocalyptic literature was influenced by 

There is unfortunately less in the Apocalyptic books or in the Synoptics Good and 
about the spirits who were good than about those who were evil. But °V! SPiits. 

1 Cf. Enoch xv. 1 ff., Jubil. x., and Justin Martyr 1 Apol.v. In Justin, 
however, and in later writers, this view is eclipsed in importance by the 
identification of the demons (or some of them) with the heathen gods and 

Angels and 


a parallelism can be noted between their natures. At the baptism of 
Jesus ‘the Spirit’ descends on him like a dove, and he hears a bat gol 
announcing that he is God’s beloved son.1 Immediately after this the 
Spirit drives Jesus into the desert, where he stays for forty days. When 
he returns he manifests irresistible power over demons and explains in 
Mark iii. 29 that he has this power through the Holy Spirit. As Gunkel 
pointed out, it is of primary importance that the Rabbis of Galilee held that 
he was a demoniac and that his family said that he was mad—which 
amounts to the same thing. Jesus’ reply is not that he is a normal man, 
but that he is obsessed—that is true—by the Holy Spirit, not by a demon.? 
But there is relatively little about the Holy Spirit in Mark. The same is 
true of Matthew. In Luke there are more references, but there is no 
passage which really settles the central problem, namely—do the Synoptic 
Gospels, and did the circle of Jewish thought which they represent, think 
that there were many bad but only one good spirit, or did they think that 
there were many of both, and that both obsessed mankind ? 

If this question is confined to the actual fact of the existence or non- 
existence of many good spirits, there can be but one answer. There were 
many. The Apocalyptic literature and the Gospels have many references 
to ‘ angels,’ and ‘ angels’ are good spirits just as ‘ demons’ are bad spirits. 

But this simple answer is not enough. An ayyeAos is, of course, merely 
a messenger. God and the Devil have each their own messengers. But by 
custom dyyeAos was used for God’s messengers, and rvedpya axd0aprov or 
Saipoviov was used for the Devil’s messengers. “Ayyeos became so far 
limited that (except perhaps in Revelation) there was a sentiment against 
using it of men, and dzécroXos was coined for the purpose (see Additional 
Note 6). Perhaps evil spirits were so much more frequent and obvious than 
good ones that if it were said that a man ‘had a spirit’ the natural 
assumption was that he was obsessed by a demon, and this tended to 
produce the Christian use of ‘ Holy ’ Spirit. 

Moreover, though there are innumerable examples of men possessed by 
evil spirits being described as ‘ demoniacs ’—daipovi(dpevo.—there is no 
corresponding word based on 7vetvja to describe men possessed by good 
spirits ; mvevpatiKos is the word which corresponds to Satpovifdpevor 
in the Epistles, but TVEYPATLKOS is not found in the Synoptic Gospels, and 
Saipovic Geis is not found in the Epistles. 

These facts partly reflect peculiarities of language, but that is scarcely 
the whole explanation. It would seem as though any demon might be 
expected to obsess anyone whom he could, but that angels confined them- 
selves to carrying out God’s commission to do or to say what he ordered. 
The Spirit with which God obsessed prophets or others was not personified ; 

1 Does ‘like a dove’ imply—as Luke carefully explains—that the Spirit 
was actually in the form of a dove, or is it merely a metaphor? Cf. the 
curious fact that according to the mss. when Polycarp died the Spirit was 
seen to escape in the form of a dove: “Blood came out and a dove.” It is 
unfortunate that in Lightfoot’s editio minor this is emended out by changing 
mepiorepav to mepl oripaka. 

2 Cf. Gunkel, Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes, p. 35. 



if a definition had been given—but it was not—perhaps it would have been 
said that the Spirit which (rather than ‘ whom’) God sent was that of which 
angels consisted—they were rvevpata, but To mvedpua was not necessarily 
an angel. Was Paul the first to go further and identify the Spirit with 
the Lord ? 

Greek Thought.—In the first century ‘ Spirit’ was the name given to Stoic ideas 
the finest form of matter in the Stoic physical philosophy which was pre- °! SPitit- 
dominant among educated men. The gods consisted of Spirit, and human 
minds were thought to consist of the same material. Whether Spirit was 
regarded as a fifth element or was a combination of fire and air is not 
perfectly clear. Nor does the point matter much for the present purpose, 
for it is tolerably clear that in the language of educated men who were 
not professional philosophers Spirit was at least equivalent to a fifth 
element, and was naturally destined to be the point of union between 
pure Stoicism which recognized no reality that was not material, and 
Platonism with its doctrine of immaterial reality. 

Plutarch is probably our safest + guide in trying to form some idea of Plutarch. 

educated opinion. He doubtless held to the metaphysical doctrines of 
Plato, at least in part, but his ‘ physics’ were mainly Stoic, and his use of 
mvevya belongs to his ‘ physics’ rather than his ‘ metaphysics.’ In this 
respect he is an interesting parallel to Philo. For our purposes his exposi- 
tion of inspiration, especially in his De Pythiae oraculis, De genio Socratis, 
and De defectu oraculorum, is the most important evidence which we possess. 
His theory is this. The soul of man is a Satudviov which has the extra- 
ordinary power of remembering the past and foreseeing the future. But 
it can foresee the future only when it can struggle free of the present by 
Dreams or Ecstasy. He recognizes that Ecstasy is a physical condition, 
and says that it is produced by mvetya which comes from the earth in 
certain places. Is it the soul which foresees the future, or the tvevua? He 
presents the parallel question—which gives sight, light or the eye? Just 
as the eyes ‘see,’ but not unless ‘light’ is present, so the ‘ soul ’ foretells, 
but only if rvetdya is present. The Spirit comes from the sun or from the 
earth, and they are the true gods. The daizdéviea may take part in the 
process of inspiration—that is Plutarch’s concession to orthodoxy—but 
essentially inspiration is the natural effect of a natural substance of which 
the name is rvetpa. 

In uneducated Greek thought wvetua seems to mean especially Uneducated 
‘ breath,’ and then by a natural extension of the term ‘ the principle which ack 
makes things alive.’ In this respect it is almost the same as ‘ruach’ in 
Semitic thought. In post-Christian times rvetj.a, especially in the chiral 
means ‘daemons,’ good or bad, but there is not sufficient evidence that 
this usage obtained in purely heathen circles in the first century. In 
interpreting obscure allusions it is hard to avoid making them mean what 
we believe they ought to mean. 

Great importance would of course attach to the position of inspiration 

1 All the better because, somewhat like Josephus, he was not a professional 


Sacramental and to the use of the word zveija in the ‘mystery’ or ‘ sacramental’ 

cults and 
the Spirit. 

cults and in magical papyri if the facts were clear, but unfortunately only 
very little can be stated. The ‘sacramental’ cults were acquainted with 
the phenomenon of ecstasy. Plutarch, Apuleius, Euripides, and Livy leave 
no doubt on that point. But where is the evidence that this ecstasy was 
described as due to zvetya.? In some of the cults there were ‘ prophets,’ 
and Livy (xxxix. 8) speaks of the leader of the Dionysiacs in Italy as a 
vates. But surely the popular theory was merely that the God spoke 
through or to his representative who then became his tpofyjtryns. The 
explanation that inspiration was due to 7vetya is later and due to more 
or less sophisticated theories as to physical phenomena. Plutarch doubt- 
less would have explained the facts in this way, but did the average initiate 
or ordinary priest do so? There is no evidence that rvetua was used by 
them for this purpose. 

It is sometimes forgotten that the only sacramental religion of the 
first three centuries of which we have anything approaching complete 
knowledge is Christianity. Investigation into the other sacramental cults is 
very unlikely seriously to change our interpretation of Christian documents. 
If the context does not make the central ideas and the characteristic 
phraseology intelligible, very rarely will the difficulty be cleared up by 
the study of magical papyri or of other cults. The importance of such 
study is in the main in another direction. It teaches us not what was, but 
how little we know about what was the background against which we ought 
to place our picture of Christianity.* 

It is of course true that in such documents as the Paris and Berlin 
magical papyri, and in the ‘ Mithras liturgy ’—which is now said to have 
nothing to do with Mithras—there are many references to wvetya, and, 
among other things, in connexion with ecstasy and the attainment of 
immortality. But who knows what is the date of these documents ? 
They may all be as late as the third century after Christ. 

My own impression is that the early Christians—including the apostles 
—explained the fact of the inspiration which they experienced as due to 
the working of the Spirit, but did not define exactly what they meant. 
That they should do so was the natural result of the fact that they were 
Jews and used the terminology of the Old Testament. When they spoke 
Greek, influenced by the LXX, they said that this was a ydpiopa of the 
mvevpa and they claimed to be mvevpatixoi. Any educated or half- 

educated Greek might naturally have interpreted this language in the - 

light of Stoic phraseology. But the Epistles are rather to be interpreted 
as in the main materials on which Greek thought worked than as the 
results of Greek speculation. 

1 The most interesting though not often the easiest treatment of the 
subject is that of Reitzenstein’s Hellenistische Mysterienreligionen. He has 
contributed enormously to our understanding, but probably has overstated the 
case for the use of wveiua in the Graeco-oriental sacramental cults. As a 
corrective to Reitzenstein, especially his later books, see the article by H. H. 
Schaeder, ‘ Reitzenstein, die Vorgeschichte der oe Taufe’ in Gnomon 
v-, 1929, pp. 353 ff. 


The whole matter can be seen most plainly if we do not try to read 
into Acts or similar books of early Christian literature metaphysical 
definitions of which the writers were probably quite unconscious. The 
study of Plato, or even Philo, gives little help to understanding the con- 
ception of the Spirit which dominated Acts, nor can more be found from 
the study of Zeno or Cleanthes. 

The New Testament.—The varying position given to the Spirit in The Spirit 
different books of the New Testament is a reflection of the main question of Oe 
New Testament exegesis, and this in turn reflects the chief problem of early 
Christian history. It is extraordinarily important, and it is not difficult 
to define. 

The easiest and clearest method is to begin with the latest books of the The Johan- 
New Testament—the Johannine. In these clear and indisputable expres- aueent 
sion is given to the thesis which has ever since remained central in Catholic theory. 
theology : ‘‘ Except a man be born again of water and the Spirit, he cannot 
enter into the Kingdom of God.” + This is, of course, the foundation of 
the Catholic doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Similarly, in the prologue 
it is written that to as many as received the Adyos ‘ power’ was given to 
‘become’ children of God—a view which is reflected in the Baptismal 
Service by the statement that baptism gives those who are baptized a gift 
which by nature they cannot have.? 

This characteristically Johannine and Catholic doctrine calls for no long 
discussion. Its existence is not open to argument. 

If, however, we turn to the Synoptic gospels, there is no trace of this The _ 
doctrine. Not merely-is there no evidence, except Matt. xxviii. 19 (which Synoptic 
very few students would accept as historical), that Jesus regarded baptism 

1 John iii. 3 and 5. 

2 The doctrine of the Spirit in the Johannine writings is in some ways parallel, 
in others complementary, to those of Luke and Paul. The identification of 
baptism with the gift of the Spirit and the necessity of both for immortality is 
clearly expressed in Jo. iii. 5-6. The importance of inspiration by the Spirit 
in Christian worship is sanctioned by Jesus’ declaration in Jo. iv. 24 that the 
time has now come when the Father must be worshipped év rvedjmare kal ddnOeig. 
The statement in the same verse, rvedua 6 Oeds, is probably the repetition of 
a Stoic commonplace which beyond this appears to have exercised no consider- 
able influence on the thought of the writer. With regard to receiving the Spirit, 
John holds two mutually inconsistent views. One is similar to that of Luke’s, 
that the Spirit is first given after the Resurrection (Jo. vii. 39), the other that it is 
inherent in the teaching of Jesus and is assimilated in the acceptance of that 
teaching (Jo. vi. 63). It is characteristic of the author’s somewhat cloudy 
mysticism that he sees no inconsistency in maintaining that the Spirit is both 
a present possession and a future acquirement (Jo. xiv. 17, 26). The latter view 
is similar to that of Luke, and the scene in Jo. xx. 22-23 is parallel to that in 
Luke xxiv. 49 with this difference—that instead of a promise to be fulfilled at 
Pentecost, Jesus conveys the Spirit himself. John’s conception of the function 
of the Spirit is much more similar to that of Paul than to that of Luke-Acts. 
The Spirit will be a constant helper, and will replace the influence of Jesus and 
his words as well as convey immortality. 

The Pauline 


as necessary to salvation, but there is no evidence that he even thought or 
said that the gift of the Holy Spirit was needed. The Spirit enabled him 
and others to work miracles and to utter prophecies ; but salvation was 
not the prerogative of prophets or of workers of miracles. Nor, finally, was 
the Spirit, or sacramental grace, thought of as necessary for men to become 
sons of God or to obtain forgiveness of their sins. Jesus is represented in 
the Synoptic Gospels as regarding all men as children of God. Whether 
their end in the world to come would be salvation or damnation depended 
not on sacraments, but on themselves. The Prodigal is not saved by any- 
thing except his own repentance. 

Moreover, there is another great difference between the Synoptic and 
the Johannine attitude toward the Spirit world. In the Synoptic gospels 
nothing is more prominent than the fact of demoniacal possession. The 
background of thought is exactly that of the Apocalypses discussed above 
(see p. 101). The work of Jesus and of his disciples is to drive out demons, 
and thus to heal disease. Jesus is represented as inspired by the Holy 
Spirit, and at least in one passage in Matthew this inspiration is the source 
of his power over demons. But there is no suggestion that anyone, even 
the disciples, is given the Holy Spirit, still less that such a gift is necessary 
for salvation. The contrast with the Johannine picture is complete. In 
the latter we have not only the insistence on the necessity of re-birth by the 
Spirit, spoken of above, but there is no mention of demoniacal possession. 
There is indeed much mention of a devil—a single being—who is ‘ the 
ruler of this world,’ but there is an immense difference between the Apo- 
calyptic-Synoptic picture of Jesus and his followers exorcising demons, and 
the grandiose Johannine picture of a cosmological struggle between the 
Son and the Devil. 

These two extremes are clearly marked. It is equally clear that they 
represent the contrast between Jewish and Greek thought. Repentance, 
completely and entirely sufficient for salvation, is a Jewish doctrine ; and 
sacramental regeneration by the Spirit is Greek. There is no doubt about 
these two extremes. The problem comes when we try to trace the passage 
of Christian thinking from the one to the other. Here the evidence is con- 
tained in the Epistles of Paul and in the Acts of the Apostles. 

In the Pauline epistles the idea of the Spirit receives a much wider 
application than in the Synoptic gospels, and interest in a theological 
formulation begins to appear. The Spirit is the possession of all Christians, 
it supplies the ‘ enthusiastic ’ features of Christian worship, expresses itself 
in prophecy and glossolalia, and through ecstasy provides special revela- 
tions. Paul’s own contribution to the doctrine of the Spirit consisted of 
three main points: (i.) he identified the Lord, i.e. Christ, with the Spirit ; 
(ii.) he regarded the Spirit as the source of Christian virtue and the 
foundation of Christian moral life ; (iii.) he held that possession of the Spirit 
was necessary for immortality. Possibly, too, he established a necessary 
connexion between the gift of the Spirit and Baptism, but this is less 

The result of the first point was to interpret the relation of Christ and 
the believer in terms of ‘ possession,’ the normal way in which a spirit 


influenced human individuals. In this experience it is notoriously difficult 
both in theory and in practice to maintain the distinction between the 
personality possessed and the personality possessing. This difficulty is 
responsible for the obscurity of what is often called Paul’s ‘mysticism.’ The 
essence of this obscurity is the impossibility of always keeping distinct 
Christ, the Spirit, and the personality of the ‘spiritual’ Christian.1 The 
other two points are really corollaries of the first. From one point of view ) 
the process of salvation consisted in the sacrifice of Christ and the acquire- . 
ment of the Spirit, and the former paved the way for the latter, but the 
identification of the Lord with the Spirit intimately connected the effect 
with the cause. From another point of view salvation consisted in gaining ) 
the necessary moral power for the realization of the Christian ethical ideal * 
and in securing immortality. The natural man, of whom Adam was the 
prototype, is mortal and morally impotent ; the man endowed with the 
Spirit, of whom Christ, the second Adam, was the prototype, is immortal 
and capable of exemplifying those lists of virtues which Paul so often indi- 
cates to be the spontaneous expression of a-Christian character. It is pos- 
sible for the Christian to sin, for he always retains a sufficient amount of his 
old individuality to escape from the influence of the Spirit, but it is un- 
necessary and unnatural for him to do so. Moreover, though it is doubtful 
whether Paul fixed baptism as the moment at which the believer received 
the Spirit and its accompanying privileges, it is quite certain that his 
followers in the next generation did so, and thus resolved a theological 
ambiguity the potential embarrassments of which for church organiza- 
tion and discipline are patent in Acts. A positive significance was thus 
attached to baptism which there is no evidence to show that it previously 
possessed ; and for the loose connexion between the gift of the Spirit 
and baptism suggested by some passages in Acts, a fixed relation was 
substituted which was of constitutive significance for later history. 

So much is reasonably clear. Paul is on the way to the Johannine 
position, but he has not reached it, and the Epistles present a most 
puzzling problem which can merely be stated in this note without any 
attempt to discuss it fully. 

Did Paul think that the gift of the Spirit—whether imparted by The spirit 
baptism or not—was either the necessary cause or the inevitable result of vr gaa 
being a Christian ? 

This question is, of course, closely associated with that of Paul’s view 
of baptism, but it is not identical with it. He may have held that the gift 
of the Spirit came through faith, not through baptism. But did he think 
that a man could be a Christian, and ‘safe’ at the day of judgement, who 
was not rvevyatixds ? It is very doubtful. Did he think that ‘faith’ was 
a gift of the Spirit ? He seems to say so, but it is perhaps improper to 
build too much on a single phrase. Perhaps it is probable that he held 
that all Christians are zvevpatixoi, but had varying xapicpara. But 
whether he thought that Christians were saved because they had the Spirit, 
or had the Spirit because they were saved, is more than the evidence allows 
us to decide. We may suspect—there is no means of knowing certainly— 

1 See also pp. 129 ff. 

lye © 


The promise 

of the 


The Seven. 



that Paul himself held that men were saved by the decree of God, who 
willed their salvation, and therefore gave them faith and filled them with 
his Spirit... But it is extremely probable that many of Paul’s Greek 
converts thought that salvation depended on their own volition in accept- 
ing the sacrament (or mystery) of baptism, which changed their nature by 
giving them the Spirit. 

Where does Acts stand ? The whole background of the book is the 
guidance of the Holy Spirit, and the consequent actions of the Apostles, 
just as the background of Mark is the war against the evil spirits. It is 
indeed very remarkable that there is hardly any reference to demons 

in Acts.? 

This is characteristic. To Mark the important thing was to drive out 

_ demons and heal disease ; apart from demons and disease (which are not 

really separate) men are in no need of change. Repentance is a change of 
conduct, not of nature. But to Luke the gift of the Spirit is the all- 
important fact ; possibly he did not think it necessary to salvation, but a 
Christian who did not have the Spirit was a very imperfect Christian. 

In the opening verses* the promise is made that the Apostles will 
shortly receive the Spirit. In the second chapter this promise is fulfilled,‘ 
and under the influence of the Spirit Peter made a speech which converted 
three thousand of his hearers.° After the healing of the lame man at the 
Beautiful Gate by the Name of Jesus, when Peter was arrested, he was 
filled with the Holy Spirit * to make his defence to the Sanhedrin, as Jesus 
had foretold.?- When Peter was released and returned to the brethren, they 
were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and the place in which they were 
gathered was shaken.*® 

In chapter v. the deceit of Ananias is regarded as a ‘lie to the Holy 
Spirit,’ apparently because it was a lie to the Apostles.° 

In chapter vi. the Seven are chosen as men full of the Holy Spirit,?° and at 
the end of his speech before his death Stephen is “ filled with the Holy 
Spirit and saw the Glory of God.” #4 

In chapter viii. 5-25 the absence of the Holy Spirit from the converts 

_ of Philip is supplied by the laying on of Peter’s hands."* This passage may 

be grouped with that in chapter vi. as suggesting a permanent gift of the 
Spirit, rather than the intermittent gift in the other passages. It is also 
noticeable that here we have a return to the ‘ war against demons’ which 
Philip drove out in Samaria.4* Philip could not give the Spirit, but Peter 
could do so. Clearly in the source from which this story was taken the gift 
of the Spirit could be conferred by the Apostles, but not by the Seven. It 
would also appear that it was a donum superadditum. It was neither the 

1 T cannot understand Rom. ix.-xi. on any other hypothesis. 

2 The exceptions are that in Samaria Philip (viii. 7) and at Ephesus Paul 
(xix. 12) drove out evil spirits. Possibly also the story of the woman with a 
Python (xvi. 16 ff.) should be reckoned in this category. 

3 i, 5. 4 ii. 1 ff. 5 ii, 41. 6 iv. 8. 
7 Luke xii. 12; Matt. x. 20, cf. Mark xiii. 11, contrast Luke xxi. 15. 
8 iv. 31. ® v.3. 10 vi, 3, 5. 

U vii. 55 £. 12 viii. 17. 13 viii. 7. 


cause nor the necessary result of salvation. Acts is in this respect far 
removed from the Pauline position. 

In the following episode the references to divine intervention are curi- 

' ously phrased. In viii. 26 the ‘angel of the Lord’ sent Philip to the Gaza 
road ; when he meets the Eunuch ‘ the Spirit’ speaks to him; and after 
he baptized the Eunuch, “ Spirit of the Lord seized Philip and the Eunuch 
saw him no more,” or if the Western text be followed, “‘ Holy Spirit fell on 
the Eunuch, and an angel of the Lord seized Philip.’”? What is the difference 
between the angel and the Spirit who speak to Philip ? Probably it is only 
a characteristically Lucan change of phrase, though it is hard to prove this. 
If so, does 7vetja. mean the same in vs. 29 and in vs. 39? It will be 
noticed that in this story there is no question of obsession or inspiration, 
unless the Western text be followed in vs. 39,—it is throughout external 
command given by the Spirit to Philip. 

In the conversion of Paul (chapter ix.) it is implied, though not stated, Paul's con- 
that Paul received the Spirit through his baptism by Ananias. This is the “°™ / 
more interesting because it differs from Paul’s own assertion that he owed 
nothing to men, but received his apostleship directly from God (see Addi- 
tional Note 15), and also differs from chapter viii. by the implication that 
the Spirit could be given by others than members of ‘ the Twelve,’ and that 
it was the result of baptism. 

In the apirteia of Peter (chapters ix. 30-xii. 17) the whole point of the Cornelius. 
story of Cornelius is that he miraculously received the gift of the Spirit 
without human intervention, which seems to imply the same theory of the 
power of the Apostles as does chapter viii. 

This chapter may be taken, for some purposes at least, as the end 

of the first part of Acts. The preceding analysis shows that it is character- 
ized by a vivid belief in the Spirit as a special gift conferred on at 
least some Christians. In some passages this gift, which was given to the 
Apostles of Jesus, can be handed on only by them, and is independent of 
baptism. But other passages suggest that it was expected by all Christians. 
These passages are nearer to the Pauline and Catholic view, but even in 
them there is no suggestion of regeneration by the Spirit, or of the view 
that salvation depends on it. In general, the gift of the Spirit in these 
chapters is sudden and drives preachers such as Philip or Peter to unpre- 
meditated words or actions, and produces sudden outbreaks of glossolalia 
and prophecy. 

There is a marked difference between this and the second part of Acts. 'The second 
In this the Spirit sometimes acts suddenly and unexpectedly, as in the first P*" of Acts. 
part, as for instance in xvi. 6 f. when the Spirit (once described as the Holy 
Spirit, once with a characteristically Lucan change of phrase as the Spirit 
of Jesus) intervenes to change Paul’s plans. But there are good reasons for “Sf 
regarding this passage as editorial (see Additional Note 18). In general 
however the number of references to the Spirit is remarkably smaller than in 
the first part of Acts. In xx. 22 Paul says that he is ‘ bound by the Spirit’ ; 
in xxi. 11 Agabus, the prophet, is inspired by the Spirit ; and in xxvii. 23 
the Angel who appeared in the night might be regarded as ‘ the Spirit,’ 
described in words more suited to the heathen whom Paul is addressing. 



The basis 
of belief in 

Its source. 



It is the paucity of these references in contrast to the first part of Acts 
rather than their character which is remarkable, and it is perhaps note- 
worthy that they come in speeches, not in the direct narrative. 

There are, however, two other references of great importance. (i.) In 
xix. 1 ff. Paul is surprised that the Ephesians had not received the Spirit, and 
attributes this to some defect in their baptism. (ii.) In xx. 28 the pastoral 
administration of the community is regarded as due to the Holy Spirit. 
The second point is entirely Pauline, and is extremely important for the 
history of the doctrine of the Episcopate. The first is not only Pauline in 
the expectation that the Christians should have the Spirit, but is markedly 
different from the earlier part of Acts in that it connects the Spirit with a 
correct baptism. In Acts viii. 15 ff. a correct baptism is supplemented by 
the laying on of Apostolic hands, and this, not the baptism of Philip, con- 
ferred the Spirit. Here Paul expects that a correct baptism would confer 
the Spirit, and this baptism includes the ‘ laying on of hands.’ But it is 
essentially Baptism, not ‘Apostolicity,’ which is effective. (See also p. 137.) 

To summarize this complicated enumeration of complex phenomena, 
the evolution of thought seems to have been this : (i.) In Mark Jesus himself 
is inspired by the Holy Spirit, and he promises that his disciples will have 
the same gift in times of stress, but there is no suggestion that this gift will 
be common, or is in any way connected with salvation. The other Synoptic 
gospels do not noticeably differ from this point of view. 

(ii.) In the early part of Acts the gift of the Spirit is general. It is con- 
ferred on the Apostles by the risen Jesus, and by the Apostles on other 
Christians. But it is an eschatological phenomenon, not the means of 
salvation. In the later part of Acts it is portrayed in much the same way, 
but is connected with baptism. 

(iii.) In the Pauline epistles the Spirit is identified with the risen Jesus, 
and the Christian is ‘ obsessed’ by him in a manner parallel to that in 
which a demoniac is obsessed by a demon. This ‘ obsession,’ which some- 
times leads to a complete identification of the Christian with the Christ, is 
the state of salvation obtained by believers. But it is not stated by Paul 
that it is obtained sacramentally ; it is rather the free gift of God. 

(iv.) In the Johannine literature the Spirit is the cause (as well as in 
some sense the result) of sacramental regeneration which in baptism changes 
the nature of the man baptized and makes him a child of God. 

The basis of the whole belief is the experience of certain men that 
their words and acts seemed at times, both to theniselves and to others, 
to be due to an irresistible power which made them do or say things 
which they had never previously contemplated. 

That experience is not peculiar to the early Church. It can be traced 
in every generation. Both its source and its value are difficult and 
important questions. 

It may produce conduct of the worst and most irrational type. 
Persons who suffer in this way used to be called demoniacs and are 
now called either criminals or insane. It is generally agreed that their 


conduct is not due to obsession by any malevolent spirit, but to some 
defect of constitution, natural or acquired. 

Similarly there are, and always have been, leaders of men, reformers, 
teachers, poets, and prophets who seem to themselves to have spoken 
and acted as they did because some higher power controlled their words 
and deeds. Their own generation has often stoned them, but their true 
memorial is not in their tombs but in the history of the race. It used 
to be said that they were inspired by God: it is now thought that, like 
the demoniacs, they can be explained as the result of some unusual 
development of mind or nature, 

There can be no doubt that the demoniac type is a menace of evil Its value. 
and that the best of the prophetic type are often the direct cause of 
progress. But just as the ancient world hesitated in which class certain 
persons should be placed, so to-day it is often impossible to say whether 
a@ man is a psychopathic subject or a great leader. As the writer of 
Deuteronomy perceived, only the future can settle the question. ‘When 
a prophet speaketh in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not nor 
come to pass that is the thing which the Lord hath not spoken.” 

It is therefore not surprising that the Jews emphasized obedience to 
the Law rather than to the voice of Prophets, and that the Church 
mutatis mutandis ultimately did the same. Nevertheless, ‘inspiration,’ 
whatever its source may be, is the motive power of life, while reason is 
its guide; and the problem of sane existence is not a choice between 
Reason and Inspiration or between the Law and Prophecy, but how to 
maintain them both in that relation of unstable equilibrium which in 
the spiritual as well as in the physical world is the condition of life in 
contrast with death. 

By Krirsopr Lake 

The problem involved by this episode is twofold. First, what did the 
writer himself think was the importance of the event described ? Secondly, 
what is the relation between the editor, the sources, and the actual facts ? 

1. The Opinion of the Writer 

1. The writer of Acts regarded the Day of Pentecost as the moment ches Lucan 
when the gift of inspiration was conferred on the disciples and they began “” ae 
the ministry of Evangelization. The apostles had not possessed this power 
before. It had not been given them at their appointment by Jesus, de- 
scribed in Luke vi., though it had been foretold in his parting words on 
the day of the Ascension. But from the moment of Pentecost they had 
been inspired by the same gift of the Holy Spirit of God which had filled 
their master during his ministry on earth, by which also he had himself 
chosen them (Acts i. 2). Henceforward all they did or said was inspired 



Prophecy. \ 


by the Spirit, and the Church of which they were the leaders was the society 
of those who acquired the Spirit (see Vol. I. pp. 322 ff.). Three points, 
however, are doubtful. 

(a) It is not clear whether the writer thought that at Pentecost 
the Spirit was given to the apostles or to all the Christians, of whom 
he says (Acts i. 15) that there were 120. The question depends on the 
meaning of ‘all’ in ii. 1 and 4, which is unfortunately obscure (see note 
ad loc.). 

(6) It is also not clear whether the writer thought that the Spirit 
received at Pentecost was to betransmitted by baptism or by the laying on 
of hands. Certainly some of his sources thought that it was conferred by 
baptism, but in other places it seems that it came through ‘the laying on 
of hands by the apostles, and that baptism itself was not sufficient to confer 
the gift (see Vol. I. pp. 332 ff.). 

(c) Finally, it is not clear whether the writer thought that the preaching 
to the crowd which had assembled in surprise, immediately after the gift 
of the Spirit, was the beginning of preaching to the Gentiles or merely to 
Jews of the Diaspora. If Ropes’s view be adopted, the word *Iovéaiou in 
ii. 5 should be omitted ; if so, the intention of the writer is to depict the 
crowd as representing the Gentiles—possibly God-fearers, but not Jews,— 
but if ‘Iovdaior be retained, he means that they were Jews of the Diaspora. 
This question is discussed further on p. 113 f. 

2. The writer believed that the immediate effect of the gift of the 
Spirit was that the recipient spoke with other tongues. | From the context . 
it is clear that he interpreted ‘ other tongues’ to be ‘ other languages,’ so 
that some, but not all, of the foreigners who were listening were able to 
understand what was said. Thus there was a miracle of hearing as well as 
a miracle of speech. But the details of the situation are obscure. Did he 
think that all the Christians present were speaking, or only the Twelve ? 
Did he think that each of the Twelve spoke in a different language ? If so, 
but not otherwise, there is much force in Harnack’s suggestion that the 
original text of the list of nations mentioned twelve. These questions can 
be raised, indeed must be, but there is no evidence in the narrative to 
answer them. 

3. A further point of less doubt is that he clearly identified glossolalia 
with prophecy. In 1 Corinthians Paul clearly distinguishes glossolalia 
from prophecy, regarding the one as intelligible, the other as unintelligible. 
But according to the speech of Peter the speaking with tongues at Jerusalem 
was a fulfilment of the prophecy of Joel ii. 28-32, that in the last days the 
Spirit should descend on Israel conveying to their sons and daughters the 
gift of prophecy, and into the text of this quotation he perhaps inserts 
‘and they shall prophesy.’ These words, if genuine, are central in his 
argument, though they are not in the original text of Joel; all the more, 
therefore, do they represent his own opinion, and he must have thought 
that ‘speaking with tongues’ was ‘ prophecy.’ It is unfortunate that a 
textual problem is again involved in this question (see notes ad loc.), but 
even if the words be omitted the meaning of the quotation remains 
the same. 


, 4, From the emphasis laid on the point in the speech of Peter it is The Spirit 
Y clear that the writer regarded the gift of the Spirit as eschatological. But moa 
once more a textual question is involved. The eschatological meaning 
of Pentecost is emphasized by a change which he makes in the quotation 
from Joel. Joel said, “‘ After these things I will pour out my spirit,” and 
this is the reading of B and of a papyrus fragment of Acts, but other 
Mss. substitute ‘in the last days,’ bringing out the eschatological meaning. 
It is hardly safe to hold a decided opinion on the text, for the external 
evidence is not sufficient, though the powerful internal evidence seems 

Nevertheless, here the question of reading is secondary. The end of the 
quotation amply proves the eschatological meaning attached to the gift of 
the Spirit. This perpetuates the tradition, found in the Synoptic Gospels 
and attributed to John the Baptist, which connected the gift of the Spirit | 
with the purification which would take place in the last day (see H. Win- 
disch, Taufe und Siinde, pp. 34 ff., and Vol. I. p. 324), and though this view 
is not explicitly found in Acts, it is unlikely that it was not shared by the 
writer of the book. Perhaps the eschatological cleansing of the nation was 
being replaced in his mind by a cleansing of the individual, but it would be 
difficult to prove this, probable though it may appear. 

5. Did the writer also regard Pentecost as beginning the preaching of Pentecost 
the Gospel to the Gentiles, or, in other words, did he think of the crowd, ee 
which assembled when they heard the apostles speaking with tongues, as 
Jewish or Gentile? The question is partly one of textual criticism, partly 
of general consideration. 

The text of ii. 5 in the Textus Receptus is joav dé év “lepovoaAnp The Text. 
katovkovrtes “lovdaios, avdpes edAaBeis ard ravtds EOvous Tov trd Td 
ovpavov. This text is found in B, but in the other old uncials of the 
Neutral group (NAC) there is considerable variation of order; S omits 
*Tovdator, and C puts “lovdaior between avdpes and edAaPeis, and Kart- 
ovxovrtes before <v “lepovoadA7jp. Such confused evidence raises a strong 
suspicion that katoixotvres and ’lovdaio. may be additions to the text, 
derived probably from the opening words of Peter’s speech in ii. 14 (avdpes 
*Tovéaior kat ot katoxovvtes lepovoad7jp). 

The case for omitting xatotxotyres is much the less strong, and for the 
present purpose at least much the less important. Apart from the external 
evidence, in which the variations of order suggest, but do not prove, that 
Katoukovrtes is not original, the word seems to contradict vs. 9. The 
same people can scarcely have been xatovxovvres both in Jerusalem 
and also in Mesopotamia. But this point cannot be pressed, as in ii. 14 
katouxovytes is used in a different sense, apparently synonymous with the 
exidnpovvtes of vs. 10, and it is very doubtful whether there was clear 
difference in the mind of the editor between xatoxotyres and eriynpovvres. 

It is his custom to vary his phrase without changing his meaning. 

But the omission of *Iovdaio. is very strongly supported by internal 
evidence. In vs. 10 ‘Jews and proselytes’ are treated as one of the 
component parts of the crowd. If so, obviously the rest of the crowd 
was not composed of Jews. Probably ‘lovdaio. in vs. 5 was originally a 


Biblical and 

(i) Babel. 


mistaken gloss on evAa/eis, and later, as so often happens, the gloss and 
the original reading were conflated. The gloss without the text is found 
in the African Latin, which reads Judaei instead of translating evAaeis. 
(See also Vol. ITT. p. 12.) 

The suggestion that "lovdaiot re kali mpoojAvror in vs. 10 does not 
mean a separate group, but is a definition of of éridnpodvres “Pwpaior, 
can hardly be sustained, as the same re «ai construction is used twice 
previously in the list (r)v Mecororapiar, "lovdaiay te kat Karmadoxiav 
and’Agiav, Ppvyiav re kai IlaydvA‘av), and in neither case can the Te 
kai phrase be taken as modifying the previous word. 

If the word ‘Jovéaior be omitted from vs. 5 it is impossible to resist the 
plain statement of the text that the multitude at Pentecost represented the 
whole world, heathen and Jewish alike, and, if so, the writer of Acts must 
have regarded the preaching at Pentecost as the beginning of the world- 
wide mission given to the apostles in i. 8. It is, perhaps, to be noted as 
characteristic of the style of Acts, which so frequently changes a phrase 
while repeating its meaning, that éws érydtov Tis y7js ini. 8 is represented 
by zavrds eOvous Tav id Tdv obpavdv. The desire of the writer was not 
to describe the development of doctrine or the evolution of the Church, 
both of which are ideas foreign to his age, but to show that from the 
beginning the Gentiles heard and the Jews refused the testimony of the 

6. Three Old Testament and Jewish parallels are so obvious that 
although they are not actually pointed out by the writer it is difficult to 
think that they were not present to his mind. 

The first is that of the Tower of Babel, where the phenomena were the 
reverse of those of Pentecost. The men of ‘the beginning’ had but one 
speech, intelligible not only to all men but even to all animals. Cf. Philo, 
De confus. ling. 3, p. 405 M.: “And there is also another story akin to this, 
related by the devisers of fables, concerning the sameness of language existing 
among animals: for they say that formerly, all the animals in the world, 
whether land animals, or aquatic ones, or winged ones, had but one language, 
and that, just as among men Greeks speak the same language as Greeks, and 
the present race of barbarians speak the same language as barbarians, 
exactly in the same manner every animal was able to converse with every 
other animal with which it might meet, and with which it did anything, or 
from which it suffered anything.” 1 And cf. also Josephus, Antig. i. 1. 4: 
** Now God commanded Adam and his wife to eat of all the other plants, 
but to abstain from the tree of knowledge, and foretold them, that if they 
touched it, it would prove their destruction. But as all living creatures 
had one language at that time, the serpent, who then lived together with 
Adam and his wife, was envious of their happiness, for he thought they 
would be happy if they obeyed the commands of God, and that if they 

1 repos Oé Tis cuyyevins ToUTw Tepl Tis TGV SGwv duopwrlas pds pvOoracr&v 
dvaypdgerac* éyerar yap, ws dpa wdvl’ boa §Ga xepoaia Kal évvdpa cal wrnva 
7) madaidv dudpwva jv, kal dvrep rpdrov avOpmrwv “EdAnves ev “EAQot, Bap- 
Bdpos dé BadpBapor viv of dubyAwrro diadéyovrat, Todrov Tov Tpbroy Kal mdvTa 
waot wepl Gv i) Spav 7) wdoxew Te cvvéBawev wyutre. 


disobeyed them, they would fall into calamities. So he persuaded the 
woman, out of malicious intent, to taste of the tree of knowledge, telling 
her that in that tree was the knowledge of good and evil; which know- 
ledge whoso should obtain would lead a happy life; nay, a life not in- 
ferior to that of a god.” + Owing to their sin this primitive language was 
‘confounded’: that of animals at the fall, that of men at the Tower of 
Babel, but at ‘the End’ the redeemed will again have but one speech. 
Ct. Test. xi. Patr., Jud. 25. 3, kat érec Oe cis Aadv Kupiov Kal yAdooa 
pia Kal ovK €oTau éxei mvedpo. wAdvns Tot BeAiap, and Plutarch, De 
Iside, c. 47, éva _ Biov Kat pilav moXureiav avOparwv paKkaplov Kat 
dpoyhioowv ravtwv yevérOat, Considering the eschatological nature 
of the story of Pentecost, especially Peter’s speech, this evidence is 
significant. , 

The second passage of importance is Isaiah xxviii. 11 f., which is quoted pal 
by Paul in 1 Cor. xiv. 21: “ For with stammering lips and another tongue 
will he speak to this people . . . yet they would not hear.” This parallel 
is much more striking if we accept the text omitting ‘ Jews’ at the be- 
ginning of the story and think that the writer regarded the preaching at 
Pentecost as the beginning of the mission to the Gentiles ; the foreigners 
understood what was said, each man hearing the Apostles speak in his own 
language, but it was unintelligible to the Jews who thought that the 
speakers were full of new wine. 

The third parallel—from Jewish literature, not the Old Testament—is ra ) bores 
that traditionally the Day of Pentecost was that on which the Law was Sinai. 
given, and was marked by phenomena similar to those described in Acts. 
The tradition as to the date is found in the Talmud (Pesahim 686), but not 
in Philo or Josephus, and therefore cannot be proved to be as early as Acts. 
But the following quotations from Philo describing the phenomena which 
attended the giving of the Law show a marked similarity to those which 
accompanied the gift of the Spirit to the disciples. “* For God is not like a 
man, in need of a mouth, and of a tongue, and of a windpipe, but as it seems 
to me, he at that time wrought a most conspicuous and evidently holy 
miracle, commanding an invisible sound to be created in the air, more 
marvellous than all the instruments that ever existed, attuned to perfect 
harmonies ; and that not an inanimate one, nor yet, on the other hand, 
one that at all resembled any nature composed of soul and body; but 
rather it was a rational soul filled with clearness and distinctness, which 
fashioned the air and stretched it out and changed it into a kind of flaming 
fire, and so sounded forth so loud and articulate a voice like a breath 
passing through a trumpet, so that those who were at a great distance 

1 6 dh Tolvuy Beds Tov “Adamov Kal Tiy yuvaika Tov ev Ar\wv puTdv éxédeve 
yeverOa, Too 5é Tis Ppovijcews amwéxerOat, mpoeuray dwapévos dw avrod d5deOpov 
yevnobuevov. spopwvoivrwy dé kar’ éxeivo Katpod Trav fgwv amdvTwv sds ouv- 
Siarrwmmevos TH Te "Adduw Kal TH yuvatkl POovepds pev elxey ed’ ols avrovs 
evdaimovicew ero wemecpuévous Tos TOO Beod wapayyé\uacw, olduevos 5é ounpopg 
wepimeccicbat wmapaxovoavras dvamelOer kaxondws Thy yuvaika yetoacOa Tod purod 
THs ppovicews év abt@ éyww elvac THy Te Taya000 Kal TOD KaKxod didyywouw, Fs 
yevouévns avrots waxdpioy kal undev donelrovra Tod Belov didéew Blor. 

Paul and 


appeared to hear equally with those who were nearest to it” (De Dec. 9). 
** And a voice sounded forth from out of the midst of the fire which had 
flowed from heaven, a most marvellous and awful voice, the flame being 
endowed with articulate speech in a language familiar to the hearers, which 
expressed its words with such clearness and distinctness that the people 
seemed rather to be seeing than hearing it’ (De Dec. 11).? 

These quotations speak for themselves. Even more remarkable are 
some of the statements in the Rabbinic literature, conveniently collected 
by Spitta (Apg. pp. 27 f.), though none of them can be proved to be as early 
as Acts. The most striking is in Midrash Tanhuma 26c: “ Although the 
ten Commandments were promulgated with a single sound, it says, ‘ All 
people heard the voices’ ; it follows then that when the voice went forth 
it was divided into seven voices and then went into seventy tongues, and 
every people received the law in their own language.” It will be noted that 
this parallel is much more striking if it be accepted that those who under- 
stood the glossolalia of the apostles were Gentiles as well as Jews. 

2. The Facts, the Source of Acts, and the Editor 

1. Paul’s Description of Glossolalia.—The view to be taken of the 
relation between the historical facts, the source of Acts, and the editor 
depends largely on the description given of glossolalia in 1 Corinthians. 
In 1 Cor. xii. 10, Paul says that there “are given to one diverse kinds of 
tongues and to another the interpretation of tongues.” Then in chap. xiv., 
distinguishing between ‘ glossolalia’ and ‘ prophecy,’ he writes as follows: 

“For he that speaks in a tongue speaks not unto men, but unto God; 
for no man hears; but in the spirit he speaks mysteries. But he that 
prophesies speaks to men,—edification, and comfort, and consolation. He 
that speaks in a tongue edifies himself ; but he that prophesies edifies the 
church. Now I wish you all to speak with tongues, but rather that you 
should prophesy: and he that prophesies is greater than he that speaks 
with tongues, except he interpret, that the church may receive edifying. 
But now, brethren, if I come to you speaking with tongues, what shall 
I profit you, unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of 
knowledge, or of prophesying, or of teaching? Similarly inanimate things 
making a sound, whether pipe or harp, if they give not a distinction in the 
notes, how shall it be known what is piped or harped ? For if the trumpet 

1 od yap ws dvOpwios 6 Beds, oréuaros Kal yAwrTys Kal dprynpiay Seduevos. aAAA 
yé wow Soxe? kar éxeivoy tov xpdbvov leporperéoraréy tt Oavyarovpyjoa Kededoas 
Fixov déparov év dép SnurouvpynOfvac mavrwv dpydvwv Oavuacisrepoy dapyoviats 
Terelats Hpoopevov, otk apuxov adn’ ods ex odparos Kal Wuxis rpdrov fou 
cuveornkbra, GAXd Wuxhv Aoyixhy dvdwew capnvelas Kal Tpavdryntos, 4 Tov dépa 
oxnuaticaca Kal émirelvaca Kal mpds mop Proyoedés weraBadotoa xabdmep Tredua 
bia oddreyyos pwviy rocairnyv evapOpor éEnxnoEv ws Tois eyyioTa Tos ToppwTdra 
kar’ toov dxpodcbat Soxeiv, 

2 gwvh 5’ ex pwéoov Tod prévros am’ ovpavod mupds é&jxer KaramdnkTiKwrdrn, 
Ths pdoyds els diddexrov dpOpovpévns Thy ouviOn Tois dxpowpuévors, 7 TH eyoueva 
otrws évapy@s érpavodvro ws épav avira. maddov 7 dxovew doxeiv. 

—ee + 


give an uncertain voice, who shall prepare himself for war? So also you, 
unless you utter by the tongue intelligible speech, how shall it be known 
what is spoken ? for ye will be speaking into the air. There are a given 
number, whatever it may be, of kinds of sound in the world, and nothing 
is without sound. If then I know not the meaning of the sound, I shall 
be to him that speaketh a foreigner, and he that speaketh will be a foreigner 
to me. So also you, since you are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that you 
may have many of them to the edifying of the church. Wherefore let him 
that speaks in a tongue pray that he may interpret. For if I pray in a 
tongue, my spirit prays, but my understanding is barren. What is to be 
done then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the under- 
standing also: I will sing with the spirit, and I will sing with the under- 
standing also. Else if you bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupies 
the place of the unlearned say ‘Amen’ to your giving of thanks, seeing 
he does not know what you are saying? For it is true that you are giving 
thanks well, but the other is not being edified. Thank God, I speak with 
tongues more than you all; but in church my wish is to speak five words 
with my understanding, that I may instruct others also, than ten thousand 
words in a tongue. 

“Brethren, be not children in mind. Yet in malice be babes, but in 
mind be grown up. In the Law it is written, By men of strange tongues 
and by the lips of strangers will I speak unto this people ; and not even thus 
will they hear me, saith the Lord. Wherefore tongues are for a sign, not 
to them that believe, but to the unbelieving : but prophesying is for a sign, 
not to the unbelieving, but to them that believe. If therefore the whole 
church be assembled together, and all speak with tongues, and there come 
in men unlearned or unbelieving, will they not say that you are mad ? 
But if all prophesy, and there come in one unbelieving or unlearned, he 
is reproved by all, he is examined by all; the secrets of his heart are made 
manifest ; and so he will fall down on his face and worship God, declaring 
that God is indeed among you.” 

From this passage it is clear that to a mind of Paul glossolalia was 
speech becoming more and more ecstatic until at last it was entirely un- 
intelligible, so that if any stranger came into the church while a Christian 
was speaking, he was likely to say that the Christian was mad. Turning 
to Acts, only just below the surface of the account of Pentecost, can be 
seen phenomena of just the same nature as Paul describes. It is true that 
as it stands the narrative suggests speech of unusual intelligibility ; but 
the opinion of some of the bystanders was that the apostles were drunk, 
and Peter in his speech does not say that this was an absurd accusation ; 
indeed, he rather accepts it as natural, and merely says that it cannot be 
true because it is too early in the day. It is scarcely necessary to add 
that this kind of glossolalia is very common in history, and is merely the 
removal of inhibitions under the stress of great emotion. (See K. Lake, 
Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, p. 241, and E. Mosiman, Das Zungenreden.) 

2. The Theory of a‘ Source’ for Acts ti.—The facts given in the previous Souree- 
section have often suggested the theory that Luke was dealing with a “Titicism. 
written source which did not say anything about speaking in unknown 

Paul and 


languages, but gave an ordinary description of glossolalia, such as Paul 
describes. He himself had not been present at scenes where glossolalia 
was to be observed, but he knew that it had been a common experience of 

+ the early church. Influenced by a natural but wrong etymology and by 
_ the Old Testament and Jewish parallels discussed above, he explained 
| glossolalia as speaking with foreign languages and re-wrote the story so 

as to bring out his own interpretation. Nevertheless, the accusation of 

' drunkenness and Peter’s speech remain to show that this is editorial and 

not historical. 

This hypothesis can be supported on two grounds: (a) Inconsistency 
with the Pauline description of glossolalia, and (b) Inconsistencies in the 
narrative itself. 

(a) Inconsistency with the Pauline Description.—This is obvious, but 
it can be easily exaggerated. It is often overlooked that Paul speaks not 
merely of glossolalia but also of a corresponding gift of the Spirit which 
enabled men to understand glossolalia. Translating his words into terms 
of modern experience, what he says is that in early Christian communities 
brethren were sometimes seized with an attack of ecstatic speech which 
was entirely unintelligible to most of the congregation. This was glosso- 
lalia. But there were sometimes a few in the congregation who believed 
that they did understand, and they interpreted to the rest what they had 
heard. To them at least glossolalia was not unintelligible; they were 
hearing in it the ‘ wonderful works of God.’ The rest of the crowd heard 
nothing but confused babble, and unless they were Christians thought that 
the speakers were mad. 

In the same way Luke may mean that on the Day of Pentecost, when the 
Christians were gifted with glossolalia, some of the pious visitors were also 
gifted with the power of interpreting the speech which they identified with 
their own dialects, while the rest were not so inspired and, therefore, needed 
Peter’s speech in order to explain the situation. Interpreted on these lines 
there is nothing in the narrative essentially inconsistent with Paul’s state- 
ments. It may have been written either by Luke or by some earlier writer. 

It should be noted that the importance of these remarks is not neces- 
sarily to discredit the hypothesis of a Lucan redaction of an earlier account, 
though of course they can be used in that sense. That hypothesis ulti- 
mately stands or falls according to the weight attached to the arguments 
in the next section. But it seems to me that it is intrinsically improbable 
that Luke, whether he was a companion of Paul, or belonged to a younger 
generation, should have written anything in unredeemed contradiction to 
Pauline teaching. Even if—as is probable—he had never read 1 Corin- 
thians, he can hardly have been ignorant of Paul’s teaching, and it is 
important to note that the story as it stands can well be a redaction of an 
earlier document, made by a member of the Pauline school, who did not 
fully understand it, but was imbued with the Pauline distrust of unin- 
telligible glossolalia. 

It therefore remains a problem of literary rather than historical 
criticism, whether we suppose that Acts ii., as we have it now, is a recension 
of an early source, or is the composition of the writer of the book. 


(6) Inconsistences in the Narrative itself—None of these are obtrusively Incon-_ 
evident, for Luke was an extremely good editor who often concealed admir- **‘°"“'** 
ably his editorial changes. This can be seen by a comparison of Mark and 
Luke, which often shows that Luke has edited his sources without leaving 
any trace, so that if Mark was not extant it would never be guessed that 
he had done so. Nevertheless, it is strange that there is no word in the 
speech of Peter about the miracle of interpretation by the ‘ pious "—merely 
a refutation of the criticism by the ‘ others’ who said that the apostles 
‘were full of sweet wine.’ Moreover, vs. 7 seems to be a doublet ! of vs. 12, 
and though 7d 7760s in vs. 6, with its present context, apparently means 
‘the whole company ’ of the evAaeis just mentioned, it would more natur- 
ally mean‘the populace’ (see note on iv.32). The facts would be adequately 
covered if it were supposed that the original source ran “and they were 
all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with tongues, as the 
Spirit gave them utterance, and when this voice arose the populace came 
together, and they were all astonished and perplexed, one saying to another. 
‘What does this mean?’ But others jeered and said, ‘They are full of 
sweet wine.’ ” 

This would lead up perfectly to Peter’s speech, and it is not incon- 
ceivable that Luke believed that glossolalia was speaking in languages 
which some pious people could understand though ordinary men could 
not, and therefore inserted ‘ other’ before tongues, and added the story 
of the ‘ pious’ visitors. In this way he produced the double statement 
of their astonishment in vss. 7 and 12, and forgot to insert any reference 
to this story into the speech of Peter. 

If this suggestion be accepted, the next question is whether there are 
any signs that the source was in Aramaic rather than Greek. There is 
certainly no reason for thinking that it was Aramaic. The only sign of 
the kind in this section is 00x idov in vs. 7, which is certainly curious Greek, 
and may be a translation from the Aramaic, but may be an imitation of the 
LXX (see note ad loc.). Moreover, it unfortunately comes in one of the 
verses most likely to be editorial. 

Thus, returning to the main question, it seems that there is not enough Conclusion. 
evidence to make the hypothesis certain, though it is not impossible or 
even improbable. Incidentally it may be noted that if it be true it indi- - 
cates that the speech of Peter was in Luke’s source, and was not composed 
by him; for had he composed it, he would surely have dealt with the 
story of the pious Jews who understood the apostles. 

A final judgement must be based on the accumulated evidence of all 
the passages in which Luke certainly or conceivably is editing sources. It 
depends far more on a study of the gospel than of Acts, for in the gospel 
the source is extant, and the method of editing is visible. Speaking gener- 
ally, it would seem that Luke, like other ancient writers, took sections from 
his sources and more or less remodelled the language, sometimes changing 
the meaning, but did not make a mosaic out of several narratives. If he 
had two narratives he was more likely to use both consecutively than to 

1 éttcravro dé kal eBavpator Né-yorres (vs. 7), c&loravro 6é rdvres Kal Sentopoivro 
& os wpds GdANov Aێyorres (vs. 12). 

The facts. 



attempt a combination. Sometimes, however, he certainly inserted one 
narrative into the middle of another. Thus in Luke v. | ff. he inserts the 
story of the ‘ miraculous draught’ into the story of the ‘ call of Peter.’ 
The parallel narratives of Mark i. 16 ff. and John xxi. 1 ff. is the proof that 
the stories existed separately. The only question is whether the combina- 
tion was made by Luke, or found by him in a source. This is exactly the 
same question as confronts us in Acts ii., but in neither place is there 
enough evidence to justify an unqualified decision. 

3. The Historical Value of the Narrative-—In any consideration of this 
question, in the end we appeal to probability and to preconceived ideas as 
to what may or may not have happened. This much must be conceded, 
but it does not necessarily follow that such preconceived ideas are wrong. 
Taking, then, the general standard of probability as a guide, there are 
certain features in the account of the day of Pentecost which do not seem 
to be historical. J 

(a) It is unlikely that any body of men witnessing the phenomena 
described ever made a speech in which they gave a complete catalogue of 
the nations from which they had been taken. 

(6) It is unlikely that men who were not members of the Christian 
community thought that they were capable of understanding Christians 
who were speaking with tongues. The same emotional circumstances 
which lead one man in any given congregation to speak with tongues 
may conceivably lead another in the same congregation to think that he 
understands him, but this would not apply to those outside the group. 

(c) Just as it is extremely likely that the Day of Pentecost was 
marked by the first instance of glossolalia in the Christian community, 
it is extremely unlikely that this took the form of speaking in foreign 
languages. ' The tradition of the foreign languages is the attempt to 
explain the glossolalia by a friendly author, separated by time from 
the actual event, just as the charge of drunkenness was the attempt 
of unfriendly observers, separated by lack of sympathy. Quite possibly 
the form of the Lucan narrative was partly brought about by the desire 
to refute damaging accusations. The presence of the foreigners may be 
merely complementary to that of the miracle of languages, and designed 
to support it. This would be by no means a unique instance of an 
improbable imaginary incident being supported by an equally imaginary 
but slightly less improbable collection of witnesses. But this view is 
not necessary, and it is by no means impossible that the first notable 
increase in the numbers of the Christian community was really the result 
of the inspired preaching of the Day of Pentecost, and was due to the 
effect of the glossolalia on those who listened. 

After allowing to these points as much or as little weight as may 
seem necessary, one positive conclusion stands out clearly. At the 

; beginning of its history the apostolic circle in Jerusalem underwent a 
_ deeply moving psychological experience. It was of the nature which 
to that and many later generations was known as ‘inspiration.’ They 
\had made no claim to inspiration during Christ’s life, but did so almost 
‘immediately afterwards. 


There were apparently two traditions as to the exact moment—the 
Lucan, which said that it was fifty days after the Resurrection, and the 
Johannine, which said that it was when Jesus breathed on them and 
said “ Receive ye the Holy Spirit” (John xx. 22). Both traditions 
connect the gift with the risen Lord, but in Acts it is primarily an 
eschatological phenomenon, in John it is the basis of the power to 
forgive sins—a function of the permanent Church, not a sign of the | 
last: days. 

To that generation it appeared clear that the phenomenon of 
‘inspiration’ was the result of obsession by ‘spirit’; to us it appears 
rather as a problem of psychology ; but whatever may be its explanation, 
the phenomenon itself is one which constantly recurs in the history 
of religion. 

It has also often been suggested that in some circles the experience Pentecost 
of the apostles of Pentecost may have been regarded as a Christophany ae 
rather than as the gift of the spirit (see for instance E. von Dobschiitz, 
Ostern und Pfingsten). All such hypotheses have too little definite 
evidence in their support ever to become more than interesting possi- 
bilities. There is however nothing intrinsically improbable in the 
suggestion, especially in view of Paul’s statement that the Lord is the 
Spirit. If it be accepted, it is not difficult to take the next step and say 
that the event described by Luke as the outpouring of the Spirit may be 
the same as that described by Paul in 1 Cor. xv. 6, as the appearance 
of the risen Lord to about five hundred brethren at once. 

[On the whole subject see especially H. Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des 
heiligen Geistes ; K. Lake, Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 241 ff. ; J. Weiss, 
Der erste Korintherbrief, pp. 335-339; E. Mosiman, Das Zungenreden ; 
Feine’s article on Zungenreden in the Realencyklopddie fiir prot. Theologie, 
ed. 3; Reitzenstein, Poimandres (especially pp. 55 ff.); and O. Pfister, 
Jahrbuch der Psycho-analyse, iii. (1911) pp. 427 ff.] 

Notre XI. Toe Namz, BaptrisM, AND THE LAYING ON oF HaNnps 
By Siva New 

The belief that a name is a powerful instrument in dealing with many The magical 
phases of daily life is primitive and very widely spread. Like various other petted 
practices now termed superstitious it is one of those fundamental human 
reactions which are found in similar forms throughout the world, but it 
would be a fallacy to attempt to link them more immediately than by the 
fact that they are instinctive responses to similar phenomena. 

In even the most casual study of anthropological sources instances of 
the use of names are readily found. In some tribes each member still 
entrusts his real name to some material object such as a stick or a stone 
and then hides this container, lest by knowledge of his name his enemies 
be enabled to do him harm. The complement of this is the theory which 
is implied by giving an enemy’s name to a doll, a waxen image, or some 


other representative of the person named and then injuring or destroying 
the image, in the belief that the enemy himself will thus be injured or 
destroyed. Others have the custom of taking a new name in old age in 
order to ensure a new lease of life.t Moreover, not only the names of 
human individuals have been considered of magical importance. Fre- 
quently the true name of a god was concealed and only the initiates could 
use it to compel him to do their will. In one story Osiris died because Set 
learned his real name and was thereby enabled to do him harm. Roman 
liturgies enumerate all the known names and epithets for each of the 
gods addressed, to avoid the possibility of omitting just the one which 
will be potent,—nor are the Roman liturgies alone in this characteristic. 
Even cities were felt to be involved with their names, so that the 
name of a city or of its protecting deity was carefully guarded, lest 
enemies might use the latter to entice away the guardian power or the 
former to break down the defences. 

All of these varied practices are in some sense parallels, at least in 
that there may be supposed to be some human instinct which is in the 
last resort the origin of each one of them. Behind each is the identification 
of the name used with the person or thing to which that name refers. To 
enumerate a list, as above, partially states the problem but it does not 
solve it. Why was this identification so constantly made? Probably 
because many people think in pictures, and to them the name of a person 
and a mental picture of the person named are fused. Thus, at an un- 
critical and unselfconscious stage, the man and his name were the same 
thing, and the next step was easy and natural: the use of a person’s name 
controlled his actions and his very existence as effectively as did a man 
who battled with and overcame him. A corollary to this belief was that 
the qualities and powers of a man or a deity were also inherent in his name. 
The elaborations of these beliefs were in some cases as little thought out 
as the original primitive association of the person and his name, and in 
some, as in the Roman liturgies, were purely mechanical attempts at 
consistency. Even to the present day, when the beliefs formulated above 
would certainly be rejected by educated people, there are many parallels 
to this instinctive association of name and person. Why do children so 
often bear the names of parents or more remote ancestors? Why do most 
men dread to die without descendants who will carry on the family name? 
How many people hope that they will be remembered by name, long after 
they themselves are dead, for something which they have said or done ? 
And yet an attempt to explain these desires reasonably and coldly sounds 
quite as unconvincing as an anthropologist’s discourse on why a savage 
expects certain definite magical results from the utterance of a name. 

Further discussion of why a name became a powerful instrument of 

1 Mk. iii. 16 f. can hardly be claimed as an example of an attempt to 
induce certain qualities magically, by giving men names which suggest them. 
It is far more probable that by ‘Peter’ and ‘Sons of Thunder’ Jesus was 
describing qualities which he had discerned in Simon and the sons of Zebedee, 
—whether Luke ix. 54 f. be accepted as true, and a probable reason for calling 
the latter Boanerges or not. 


magic is probably futile, and for the present purpose unnecessary, since it 
is certain that it did so. In the world into which Jesus was born ‘it was so 
implicitly accepted that he and his contemporaries wasted no more time in 
discussion of it than a later generation does in querying the effectiveness 
of antiseptics. It is this assumption of the power of a name which 
must be emphasized at the beginning of any intelligible treatment of its 
place in the theory and practice of early Christianity, since in the modern 
world it has been so far outgrown that the formulae which embody it can 
only be repeated if no question be asked as to what the words actually 

The Gospel of Mark.—The clearest example of the use of the Name in The Name 
Mark is in ix. 38 ff.: épy aitd 6 “lwavvys, Addoxare, eldapev Tia év me Hark 
TO dvopati cov éxBadAovra Saupdvea, Kat exw Avopev avTov, OTL OvK 
jrohovGet %) npiv. 6 be ‘Ingots cirev, My) kovere avrTov, ovdels yap eT LV 
ds tomoes Sivapiv ert ty dvdpati pov Kat Suvycetas Taxd Kako- 
Aoynoal pe. Os yap ovK fore Kad? pov trep iyuav éoti. There is 
no doubt as to the meaning. The disciples saw a stranger who cast out 
devils by commanding them in the Name of Jesus. They objected 
because he was not a disciple, but Jesus pointed out that the man who 
worked miracles by the use of his Name could not very well then turn 
about and become his enemy. Here it is not any power, consciously con- 
veyed to the miracle-worker by Jesus, which commands the devils ; it is 
simply the use of his Name by a completely unauthorized person.* To 

1 Compare the account of Eleazar in Josephus, Ant. viii. 2. 5. This 
man used to heal demoniacs by drawing the devil out through their noses, 
using a ring with an herb in it recommended by Solomon, and Solomon’s 
name—ZodouGvos peurnpévos. 

2 However helpful to the interpretation of the New Testament a clear 
perception of historical perspective may be, it was not the atmosphere in 
which the early Christian moved. It is easier to understand a ‘superstition’ 
if parallel or causal phenomena are studied also. The danger is in forgetting 
that those for whom this superstition was a living thing were unaware of 
any parallels or any of those facts which seem to the historian the ultimate 
explanation of the belief. It was simply a reaction to some part of the world 
as it was then seen. Nor is it legitimate to condemn as inconsistent beliefs — 
about two different things which had no connexion in the minds of those who 
formulated the beliefs. 

% Much recent discussion has been expended on the nice problem of whether 
there is not a slight variation of meaning between the phrases év 7g évéuari, 
éxl TG dvéuari, and es 7d dvoua, but a negative answer would seem to be offered 
by the usage of the New Testament itself. Paul, the earliest of the writers, 
rarely uses the phrase ‘ in the name of,’ but on the three occasions on which he 
mentions it in connexion with baptism it is twice els 7d dvoua and once év 
T@ dvéuart. In the passage from Mark quoted above ézi is found in some 
manuscripts in verse 38 and év in some in verse 39. In verse 38 7@ évéyuari 
without a preposition also occurs. Is there any difference of meaning in the 
expressions ? According to the text preferred by the editors the disciples say 


cast out a devil by commanding him in the Name of Jesus to go was so 
fully in accord with the beliefs of the time that it raised no comment. 
The disciples were not surprised at the success of the measure; they 
objected to it as unauthorized. Jesus himself had the power to cast out 
devils, and therefore his Name carried the same power, no matter who 
pronounced it.!_ This belief persisted for centuries. In the second century 

év 7r@ évduarc and Jesus érl 7@ évduarc in referring to the same occurrence, 
but in the Lucan parallel it is the disciples who use éri and not Jesus. It 
is thus difficult to suppose that the phrases are not synonymous. The 
opinion, also, of the scribes who wrote the extant manuscripts of the New 
Testament seems clearly to have been that there was no distinction between the 
various ways of expressing ‘ in the name,’ and translators have usually rendered 
the Greek on this assumption. This is natural in a language which was already 
using e/s and év interchangeably in all connexions, the first step toward that 
modern Greek in which e/s serves for both and éy is lost to the spoken language. 

The question is only one aspect of the larger problem of the character of the 
language used by the writers of the New Testament and of its relation to 
Aramaic and to the Koine Greek of the period. The point of chief importance is 
that Greek is the language in which the New Testament, as we have it, was 
written, whatever its sources may have been. This Greek was not the language 
of careful scholars: it was the current speech of the period and locality. Christi- 
anity had its beginnings in a society in which at least a fair proportion of the 
population spoke both Aramaic and Greek. Many converts had been familiar 
from childhood with the language of the Septuagint,'a document which had 
been translated in great part from Hebrew. Undoubtedly Semitic idiom had to 
some extent influenced their speech, from one source or another, but the 
language they spoke was Greek, not Aramaic, or even translated Aramaic. A 
modern parallel is the English spoken by the negroes in the south of the United 
States. In accent, intonation, and idiom it is very different from English as it 
is spoken by any other people, but it is English and not an African dialect. 

Moreover, subtle shades of meaning, achieved by slightly varying an ex- 
pression, are not the ordinary language of every day, nor are they so understood 
by ordinary people. A convert knew perfectly well that when he said that he 
had been baptized in the name of Jesus he meant that someone had said ‘I 
baptize you in the name of Jesus’ or something similar, and that in conse- 
quence he had attained the way of Salvation; but it is very hard to believe 
that he would have distinguished between eis rd dvoua to express the aim of 
baptism and év 7G dvéuart to imply the words of the formula which had 
been used. 

1 Running parallel with this belief in the power of Jesus’ Name there is 
also apparent in the Gospel of Mark that belief in the power of Faith which 
persisted and grew stronger, while the other died. In v. 34, ix. 23 f. and other 
places the belief of the sick person (or in one case of the demoniac’s father) was 
at least partially responsible for the cure and necessary for it. In vi. 4 ff. 
Jesus was actively hindered by the unbelief of the Galileans, cal ovx édévaro 
éxel Torjoat ovdeulav Sivamy, although he was able to heal a few individuals who 
presumably did believe in him. In xi. 23 ff. it is again wloris which is asserted 
to be the power by which mountains may be moved. 

xvi. 16 ff. gives the later, developed theory, in which the man who believes 


the synagogue forbade the use of the Name of Jesus to exorcise or to 
heal: it was effective, but it was wrong. 

The theory is the same as that found in various Hebrew documents, 
some of which long antedate and some of which are contemporary with 
Jesus. The names of angels had magical power. The name of God him- 
self was much too sacred for this purpose, and it was blasphemy to utter 
it, but its power if pronounced or written was not doubted. By it God 
had created heaven. Inscribed on Moses’ staff it divided the waters of 
the Red Sea. Spoken by him it killed the Egyptian. Isaiah, threatened 
by Manasseh, used it to raise about him a cedar—though the sequel 
was curious, for Manasseh sawed through the cedar and thus killed 

So far there is no difficulty. Jesus had the power to heal and to exorcise. 
This was also incorporated in his Name. But whence did his power come ? 
What name did he use? None. He expels devils and commands men 
to be healed; or he lays his hands on them and they are healed. The 
priests and the scribes queried this: €v roia éfovcig.} tatra Troveis ; 7) Tis 
go wey tiv eLoveiay tTatvTnv iva tatTa mwoujs; (Mk. xi. 28.) Kal 
COapPyOnrav amravres, GoTe cuvénteiv adto’s A€yovtas Ti eotw 
tovT0; didax7 Kawi Kat e€ovoliav Kal Tots rvevpace Tois dxabdprots 
emiTdooe, Kal braKkovovow avt@. (Mk. i. 27.) He acted with ‘ authority,’ 
that is of his own power, not by the use of the name of any other 

Nowhere does Mark tell of the disciples exorcising or healing in the 
Name of Jesus, but in iii, 14 f. Jesus eroinoev SuWdexa . . . iva azo- 
otéAAy adbrods knptooev Kal exe eEovoiav exkBddrAcw Ta Saipdvia, 

and is baptized can cast out devils in the Name of Jesus and heal the sick by 
laying his hands on them. Mark, however, had not achieved this fusion and 
a general view of his account must bring out inconsistencies. It is probable 
that in the beginning the dominant belief was that anyone could do the things 
which Jesus did by uttering his Name, but that the current of thought which 
emphasized the power of Faith was already widely diffused. In Mark the two 
run side by side and unreconciled : perhaps heritages from two different sources, 
but equally possibly merely the reflection on a not too critical mind of different 
beliefs in the contemporary world. 

1 This is not the place to discuss the character of this éfovcla, or whether 
it was thought of as mvedua, but it is worth remembering in this connexion 
that when the woman in Mark v. 25 was cured merely by touching Jesus’ 
garment he knew of it immediately, not because he saw or felt her touch but 
because émiyvols év éauvr@ rhv €& adbrod Sivamw éfeodcav. This is clearly 
a loss of strength of some sort, parallel to the loss of strength which would 
come from lifting a burden. 

2 What did Jesus himself think of as the source of or reason for this power ? 
Did he believe it was due to his prayers? Cf. Mk. ix. 29 and xi. 24. Or was 
it because at the Baptism he had been specially appointed by God as his Son? 
Mark apparently not only held the latter view, but also thought that Jesus 
did so. The gift of the Spirit made Jesus Son of God, and enabled him to 
triumph over demons. 


Other uses 
of the 


and in vi. 7 it is said xal édidov avtois efovciavy Tov mvevpdtwv TOV 
axa0dprwv, in consequence of which in vi. 12 f. the apostles went out and 
exnprgav iva petavodor kal Sarpdvia woAAd e&€Badrov, Kal iAeupov 
éXaip? rodXods dppwatovs Kat eOepdrevor. 

According to Mark, then, the disciples were authorized by Jesus to do 
just the things which he was doing—preach, exorcise, and heal. Although 
it is not said that they did these things in the Name of Jesus, they at least 
received from him the authority to do them, and they were able to work 
the miracles which Jesus performed as they had previously been unable 
to do. Either Mark thought of them as having received from Jesus the 
power which he had by some such direct transference as the laying on of 
his hands, or as doing their works in his Name in the same manner in which 
the unauthorized man in Mk. ix.did. The latter is the more probable view 
when the various stories in Acts, where healing is done in the Name of 
Jesus, are compared with the statements in Mark. 

Since healing and the casting out of devils are so constantly linked the 
question arises whether they were not considered as in reality the same 
thing. Was all illness due to the presence of evil spirits ? Or was it 
perhaps necessary in some cases to give to the person who was ill a good 
spirit—eisorcism—rather than to exorcise an evil spirit? If this be so it 
may solve the question raised above as to why Jesus felt power depart from 
him when he inadvertently healed the woman. It was not that she had an 
evil spirit which must be driven out, but a good spirit entered into her to 
perform the cure. What, also, is the relation of sinfulness to illness and 
to evil spirits ?_ Jesus himself asks his critics whether it is easier to say to 
the man sick of the palsy “Thy sins be forgiven thee,” or to say “ Arise, 
take up thy bed and walk.” The question is merely a verbal “score” if 
there be no connexion between sin and disease. 

Somewhat different from the other uses of the Name are the references 
to persecutions which will be inflicted on Jesus’ followers ‘ for my name’s 
sake’ and to those who are received or benefited ‘in my name.’ The 
Greek phrases, like the English, do not differ from those used in speaking 
of the use of the Name for exorcism or baptism, but it is improbable that 
here they have any magical significance. ‘ Persecuted for my name’s 
sake’ means that Jesus thought that those who were known to be his 
followers would on that account be persecuted. It is even possible that 
by the time when Mark was writing the term ‘ Christian’ was already in 
use and influenced the phrasing of such passages. Heitmiiller believes 
that James ii. 7 ov avtol BAaadnpoter 7d Kaddv dvopa 7d erixAnOev ep’ 
ipas is a specific reference to those who have had the name ‘Jesus’ 
pronounced over them in baptism, but it seems unnecessary to assume that 
it means more than that Christians were already called Xpurriavoi. No 
reference to baptism need be seen beyond that contained in the assump- 
tion that people who were called Christians had for the most part been 

1 Cf. James v. 14 dodeve? ris év duty; mpooxadecdcOw tods mpecBurépous Tijs 
éxxAnolas, Kal mpocevédcOwoar én’ airdv, ddelaytes abrov év TH dvduari Tod 


The exact meaning intended in the passages dealing with men who are 
received by others ‘ in my name ’ is clarified by the parallel in Mt. x. 41-42: 
6 Sex opevos tpopitnv eis dvopa mpopitov pucOdv mpopijrov Anpperas 
Kal 6 Sex dpevos dixavov eis bvopa. dtxaiov pao Dov duxaiouv Anjpyerat. kal 
ds av motion éva TOV pupav ToOUTwY Tori pLov Yuxpod povov eis dvopa 
pabnrod, apiv A€yw tpiv od ph drodérn Tov picOdv adrov. This is 
only an elaborate way of saying “he that receiveth a prophet because 
he is a prophet,” or “he that receiveth a prophet because he honours a 
prophet.” In the same way Mk. ix. 37 and similar passages means : 
** Whosoever shall receive one of such children for love (or honour) of me.” 
So also the cry at the triumphal entry: evAoynpévos 6 épxdpevos ev 
évéparte Kupiov. 

The Gospel of Matthew.—Matthew reflects the same views as does Mark The Name 
in regard to the power inherent in the Name of Jesus. He omits the story '" M*tthew. 
| of the man who was working miracles by it without authority, but makes 
the same assumptions in vii. 20 ff.: dpaye amd TOv KaprOv avTov émt- 
yvocerGe adtods. ov was 6 A€eywv por Kupue Kipie eioeAevoreTar eis TIHV 
Baoireiav tov otpavOv, GAN oO Toy 6 OeAnpa TOU mat pés pov TOU 
év Tots ovpavois. moXAoi é épototy pooe ev éxeivy TH PEPE Kipre xipre, 
ov T) oH dvdpart erpopyteboaper, kal T) oO ovdpart Sarpdvea 
a€eBddAopev kal TO o@ Ovdpate Suvdpers worAas é eroujoapev; Kal TOTE 
dporoynow aidtois dtu ovdérote eyvwv ipas’ droxwpeite am Euod ot 
épyaopevor tiv dvopiav.. It is again clear, as in Mark, that there 
is no question of the efficacy of the use of Jesus’ name; but it is 
also clear that its successful use does not necessarily mean that the user 
will be worthy to enter the kingdom of heaven. 

On the other hand, the theory of the power which Jesus himself pos- 
sessed is more fully elaborated. He makes the claim (xi. 27) rdvra prot 
TapedoOn vd Tov watpds ov: for Matthew the primary fact was that he 
was Son of God, and to that fact his power was directly due.2 Mark 
tells the story of the descent of the Spirit at the Baptism and it can be 
inferred that he regarded this possession of the Spirit as the source of 
Jesus’ power. Matthew more definitely states this in the discussion in 
xii. 18-28: (dod 6 rais pov dv ypérwa" 6 ayarnrds pov bv edddKnoer 1) 
Yux} pov. Onow 7d rvedpd pov ér avdrov, Kal Kpiow tots eOvecww 
amayyeAe . . . ei 5 ev rvetpate Oeod éyd éxBddrdAw Ta Satpdvia, apa 
épOacev ef’ ipas 7) BaciXrela Tov Geov.* 

This power he is represented as delegating to his disciples on two 

1 There is no parallel to this passage in Luke, and it is therefore doubtful 
whether it is taken from Q. Perhaps it reflects the troubles caused in the 
Church by false prophets. Cf. 1 John ii. 18, iv. 4. 

2 That God is the ‘ Father’ of men—not only, but especially, of Jesus— 
is characteristic of Matthew, see Vol. I. pp. 401 ff. 

® The vioi budv in vs. 27 may refer to Jesus’ followers and the reasoning be 
that if Jesus casts out devils through the Devil his followers are possessed of 
Satan, but if he casts them out through the spirit of God which is in him, he has 
passed that spirit on to his disciples and the Kingdom of God is therefore 
among them. 


different occasions. The first is the parallel to the Marcan story, when 
during his own ministry he sends out the Apostles. Here he gives them 
the power to cast out devils and to heal, and sends them forth to do 
these things and to preach that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. 
The second is the command laid on the Twelve by the risen Jesus to 
go forth and make disciples, and is found in the last three verses of the 
gospel, the trustworthiness of which is very doubtful. But whoever wrote 
them meant to make it plain that it was because all power in heaven and in 
earth had been given to Jesus that he could pass on to the disciples the 
authorization to go forth and teach the nations and baptize them. 

The Name The Gospel of Luke.—Luke holds the same views in regard to the 

se power of Jesus’ Name as do the other synoptic gospels, but adds one im- 
portant point. He clearly states what has been assumed in the stories told 
in the others, that when Jesus sends forth his disciples the power which 
he gives them is exercised through the use of his Name. In x. | ff. he 
tells of the sending forth of seventy, as well as twelve, and the seventy 
return saying with joy, Kipue, cai ra Sawdvia trotdooeras ypiv ev TO 
ovépati cov. 

One of the points which are very difficult to understand, both in Luke 
and in Mark, is how the power given to the disciples by Jesus differed 
from that possessed by the man who used his Name without having any 
authorization to do so. Or was there no difference in that respect ? Was 
it only the command to spread the teaching of Jesus which was the 
important part of the mission, both to Jesus himself and to the man who 
told the story ? This is one of those tantalizing questions, an answer to 
which would be so valuable for an understanding of the period when 
the gospels were written, but dealing with a subject so obvious to the 
writers that it was never raised to the level of discussion or explanation, 
so that it will probably never be answered. 

Up to this point the evidence for the beliefs held about the Name of 
Jesus and the uses to which it was put is fairly simple and consistent, and 
does not in kind go beyond those expressed in earlier or contemporary 
Hebrew documents. But with the Pauline Epistles and Acts there is a 
change. This may be due to currents of thought which began to influence 
Christianity when it spread into the cosmopolitan world of the great cities 
of Asia Minor, Egypt, and Greece, where the Jews were only one foreign 
element in a mixed population which had many varying traditions behind 
it*; or the change may be due to Paul himself and to his development 
of the ideas prevalent among the Christians of his day. This raises a 
problem which constantly confronts the student of the New Testament : 
Should the Pauline Epistles, which were certainly written first and contain 

1 The “succession” is as clear as when Clement of Rome says that Jesus 
depends from God and the apostles from Jesus. 

2 The sources of the Synoptic Gospels, or at least the events which are their 
theme, are earlier than the writing of the Pauline Epistles. This accounts for 
their more primitive ideas in regard to the Name, and also for the difference 
in the theories reflected in the Gospel of Luke and in Acts. 


ideas that must to some extent have been familiar to the writer of Acts, be 
considered first? Or should Acts, which portrays a period of Christian 
development before the conversion of Paul, which is in some ways more 
primitive than that reflected in the Epistles of Paul? In this case it 
seems better to begin with the Epistles. It is very probable that Paul’s 
beliefs were already spreading over the Christian world, or perhaps that 
the ideas which influenced Paul had also to some extent shaped the 
beliefs of the majority of Greek-speaking Christians. In either case it 
seems more useful to study what little Paul has to say on the subject 
before going on to consider the mass of evidence in the Acts—evidence 
greater in quantity and more specific than all that has gone before. 

The Pauline Epistles—These introduce us into a different world from The Pauline 
that of the Synoptics. This is due in part to the different purpose for which Bence 
they were intended, and mere omission must not be regarded in the same 
light as in an historical writing. But when all allowance has been made for 
this, it remains clear that Paul had a different Weltanschauwng from Mark. 

The Epistles constantly refer to the believer as united to Christ, and Mysticism. 

it is this sense of the identity of the Christ and the Christian and its im- 
portance as the basis of a changed life which is often called Paul’s mysti- 
cism. This is a correct statement if it be correctly understood. The 
central point in all ‘ mystical’ experience is that it gives those who enjoy 
it a sense of unity, whereas almost all sensuous experience heightens the 
perception of difference and individuality. But this experience, like 
all others, is criticized and explained by the intellect, and always in terms 
of the theories as to Man, God, the Universe, and Reality which it happens 
to hold. Mysticism is an experience common to the race, though not to 
all members of it; it is always a sense of freedom, of lifted barriers and 
achieved unity; but it has been explained in many different and even 
contradictory ways. To Paul it seemed due to the relation between 
himself and the risen Lord—the Spirit—but it is necessary to distinguish 
between the reality of Paul’s mystical experience and the truth of the 
intellectual explanation which he accepted. The former is doubtless the 
more important, but its discussion lies outside the present note. Similarly, 
Paul’s intellectual explanation must be judged as part of his general 
Weltanschauung, and a criticism of this cannot now be undertaken. For 
the present all that is intended is a statement of Paul’s beliefs, not a 
criticism of them. 

The general view which seems to underlie Paul’s theory of his own Mysticism 
mystical experience—and he himself at least certainly did not distinguish Se 
this theory from the experience itself—is much more closely associated with Sct 
the Jewish doctrine of spirits and their power of ‘obsessing’ human beings ; 
than it is with any Greek philosophy, which latter seems to have affected 
the language of the Epistles only slightly and the thought not at all. 

Just as the Spirit of the Lord possessed a prophet, or an evil spirit pos- 
sessed a demoniac, so the Lord—who is the Spirit—possessed Paul and 
other Christians, and in such a way that henceforth everything they did 
and the whole course of their lives was dominated and controlled by the 





Lord, not by themselves. ‘I live no longer,” says Paul, “ but Christ in 
me.” To obtain this possession by the Lord or by the Spirit and so become 
a ‘new creature’ was the most important thing. It was accomplished 
by faith and by baptism. It was the reverse of exorcism, but just as 
miraculous, and might perhaps be called ‘ eisorcism.’ 

It is natural to expect that the Name of the Lord should play a 
considerable part in Paul’s writings. Investigation confirms the expecta- 
tion, though perhaps not so much as might have been anticipated. There 
is no mention anywhere of exorcism or of cures in the Name of Jesus. 
This does not mean necessarily that Paul disbelieved in them or did not 
practise them, but that they were not points which he felt it necessary to 
impress on the people whom he was addressing. It is quite possible that 
this is simply an indication that they were taken for granted and were 
not, at that time, a subject of controversy. But though exorcism is not 
mentioned the Name often appears. 

In Philippians ii. 9-11 it is said that God has given Jesus 7d dvoya 7d 
trép Tav Ovopa, iva ev TH dvopate’Inood wav yovv Kdpily érovpaviwv 
kal érvyeiwv Kat KataxGoviwv, kal rica yhoooa eEoporoyjorntat drt 
Kvptos Inoovs Xpirris cis Sdéav Ocot ratpds. The name given to Jesus 
is obviously Kvpios,} ‘ Lord,’ which was ‘above every name,’ because in. 
the LXX it was the Greek equivalent of ‘Jahveh.’ The meaning is that 
God gave his own name to Jesus. 

In Rom. x. 9, he says: “If you confess the word? with your mouth ” 
(referring to Deut. xxx. 14) “that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your 
heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” The 
phrase ‘ the name’ is not actually mentioned, but it is surely implied by the 
‘confess with your mouth,’ and p7jya is used here owing to the influence 
of the LXX instead of the dvoya of Philippians. 

The most significant point in these two passages is that they ascribe 
power to the Name of Jesus without mentioning baptism. Possibly, 
though very far from certainly, Paul is thinking of baptism and its relation 
to the phrase ‘ Lord Jesus,’ but in any case it is clear that the Name is not 
limited in its efficacy to its use in baptism. 

What was the origin of the idea involved? Salvation by identifica- 
tion with Jesus, whether through baptism or through faith, is in a different 
category from anything found in the synoptic gospels. A popular solution 
is to say that it was probably taken over from the mystery religions 
which were so widely spread at that period. Generally speaking, however, 
it is easier in the present state of knowledge to use the accurate informa- 
tion which we have about some phases of early Christianity to explain the 
few remaining accounts of the mysteries than to bring any knowledge of 
the mysteries to bear on the interpretation of Christianity. It is known, 
however, that in Egyptian burials there was a re-enactment of the burial of 
Osiris, and that each corpse bore his name and was thus identified with him, 
was in point of fact an Osiris and supposed to live, as he does, in the Lower 
World. It is not justifiable to assume that this influenced Paul’s develop- 

1 Cf. Mt. xxiv. 5, and Luke xxi. 8, where ‘my name’ means ‘ Xpicrés.’ 
2 BClem4! read 7d pjua . . . bre Kiros Inoods. 


ment of Christian theology; but he certainly lived in a world in which 
many similar beliefs were common, so that combined with the already 
widespread opinion that the utterance of the Name of Jesus would 
accomplish the miracles of healing and exorcism which he himself had 
performed, they may have led Paul to the conclusion that not only did the 
other powers which Jesus possessed pass to those men who used his Name, 
but that his power over death was also conveyed to them. 

Moreover the further conviction was perhaps held by Paul, certainly by Paul and 
the Catholic Church, that not only was the pronouncing of the Name of *?ts™ 
Jesus capable of saving men, but that quite especially to have it pro- 
nounced over them in baptism did so. There are only four passages in the 
Pauline Epistles which can be cited as definite evidence for Paul’s views 
on baptism—and of these one is the obscure reference to baptism for the 
dead in 1 Cor. xv. 29. In spite of this, however, it is possible to recon- 
struct some part of his beliefs. 

In 1 Cor. i. 11 ff. it is assumed that those who were baptized in the 
Name of Jesus belonged to Him—were Christians. Paul’s concern is 
the denial that he had baptized in his own name—that is, made 
‘Paulines.’ If the disciples were using the Name of Jesus in baptism 
to distinguish themselves from the followers of John, this is the sort of 
accusation which enemies might have brought,—that they were splitting 
into futile little groups headed by individual leaders. There is no need 
to perceive in this discussion a belief in ‘ sacramental’ baptism, although 
there is nothing to contradict it. Nor need a reference to a definite 
formula be understood, although the parallelism ‘ Paul’—‘ Christ’ and 
then ‘in my own name’ is surely significant. Paul’s curiously slighting 
disclaimer of a mission to baptize, a few verses below, gives the impres- 
sion that in any case he did not at this time consider baptism as of 
great importance. 

In 1 Cor. vi. 11 washing év t@ dvdpate tot Kupiov “Inoot Xpurrod 
must refer to baptism. Perhaps this is the baptismal formula and the 
next phrase, é€v T@ rvevuati TOU Feov jpov,! refers to the gift of the Spirit 
which is the result of baptism and is the sanctification. 

Finally, in Rom. vi. 3ff., baptism is the means of uniting the 
Christian with Jesus Christ in his death and in his resurrection.? 

Such a baptism is definitely sacramental. That of John was a baptism 
unto repentance, and did not assume that it at all changed the nature of 
the penitent or had any direct connexion with salvation. Jesus himself 
probably did not baptize, but after his death his disciples may have done 
so and used his Name in order to distinguish their converts or penitents 
from those of John and his disciples. Of this stage, however, there is no 
evidence, and it is a long step from it to sacramental baptism. It is a 
step which might well have been made by a man who connected the 

1 It is just possible that this is a unique reference to a double baptismal 
formula, but I think it very improbable. : 

2 A reference to the baptismal formula has also been seen in Rom. x. 9. 
If so, it is again the simple ‘in the Name of the Lord Jesus’ (cf. Acts ii. 21). 
Paul was certainly not acquainted with the Trinitarian form. 


Acts iii.-iv. 


outward ceremony of baptism and the consequent sloughing off of his 
own sinfulness with the inward experience of unity with Jesus; but if so, 
it is another instance of how often in the history of religion similarity of 
phrase bridges a deep diversity of thought. 

The Acts.—In the early chapters of this book, and particularly in 
those usually ascribed to the Jerusalem source A, the story is told of a 
great struggle between the Disciples and the Jewish authorities, which 
centred in the use of the Name of Jesus.1 The account begins with 
the story of the lame man at the Beautiful Gate whom Peter cured 
év TO ovdpare Inoot Xpwrot tot Na(wpaiov (iii. 6), and his explanation 
to the marvelling crowd that it was not his own power but that of the 
Name of Jesus which had worked the miracle.” 

The excitement which followed was made the pretext for the arrest 
of Peter and John and an inquiry into the source of their power, but 
the true reason was that the authorities were disturbed because they 
taught the people, and preached through Jesus the resurrection from 
the dead. Doubtless it was this which provoked Peter’s rather lengthy 
answer, not only that they had healed the man in the Name of Jesus 
Christ of Nazareth, but that ov« éorw év ddAA@ ovdevi % TwTnpia, ode 
yip dvoud éoriv Erepov bd Tov otpavody 7d Sedopéevov év avOpwrois év @ 
dei cwOjvar jas. This may refer to the cure of the lame man who 
éowOn, it may mean eschatological safety, or it may imply salvation by 
regeneration. There is nothing in the context to suggest the last, but 
the other two are probable, and the transition from one to the other is 
bridged by ambiguous phrases (cwrypia, cwOjvat) in a manner which is 
characteristically Lucan. The Sanhedrin could not fight the logic of 
facts so far as to punish the Apostles, but illogically enough issued a 
command to them to abandon the use of the Name. The Apostles 
took no heed and they were again brought before the council, to 
receive the same injunction, “and they departed from the presence of 
the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for 
his name. And daily in the temple, and in every house, they ceased 
not to teach and preach Jesus Christ’ (v. 41 f.). 

This is the last heard of this conflict, except for a possible reference - 
to it in the story of Ananias, who protests to the Lord that he has 
heard much of Paul’s evil treatment of Christians ‘and here he hath 
authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name” 
(ix. 14). But if there is no more about the struggle over the use of the 
Name, stories of cures by it are scattered throughout the book. The 

1 The probability that this picture is true to history is shown in the stories 
in the Talmud, which indicate that the controversy persisted to a much 
later date. (See Vol. I. pp. 319 and 426.) 

2 The part played in this cure by ‘faith’ is very obscure, and in iii. 16 it 
is certainly not clear whether Peter or the lame man was possessed of the 
‘faith in his name’ referred to. The lame man does not seem to have been 
aware of what might befall him when he approached Peter. In any case, 
the Name of Jesus was the agency by which the cure was effected. 


disciples heal and exorcise in the Name of Jesus,! but the most important 
and curious passage is the story of the sons of Scaeva.? They were Acts xix. 
exorcists * who took it upon themselves to drive out evil spirits in ‘the © 
name of Jesus whom Paul preacheth.’ The demons recognized the names 
both of Jesus: and of Paul, but not the right of these exorcists to use 
them, and they therefore fell upon the sons of Scaeva, injured them, and 
drove them away. That is, in this case the unauthorized use of the Name 
of Jesus did not succeed. This is remarkable and rare. In the history of 
the magical use of names authorization is seldom an element. Usually 
the Name works ex opere operato. It would appear that, contrary to 
Jesus’ example, the Christian community of this period resented the use 
of his Name by any but themselves, and did not believe in its efficacy unless 
supported by Christian faith. 

But, although Luke narrates these cures and exorcisms in the Name ane Name 
of Jesus, its connexion with salvation and its connexion with baptism 5, er BE ry 
interest him far more deeply. Yet it is no easier to find a simple answer to 
the question of what Luke regarded as the means of salvation than to that 
of what he meant by salvation. In iv. 16 f. and in ii. 21 (a quotation) 
it is, however, achieved through the Name of Jesus or ‘ the Lord.’ 

1 ix. 33f., xvi. 16 ff. Cf. also xiv. 8f. and xxviii. 7 ff. In the former the 
faith of the man healed is the effective instrument—but is this not faith in 
Paul’s power? In xxviii. 7 ff. Paul cures Publius’s father by praying and 
laying his hands on him, just as Jesus did in some cases. 2 xix. 13 ff. 

% Whether they were Jewish or not, whether they were seven or less in 
number, and whether or not Scaeva was a high priest, are points immaterial to 
the present purpose. See also Addit. Note 23. But the Western text here 
differs from the Neutral on one point important for this discussion. D reads 
émixaheto Oat 7d dvoua, and the simplicity of the formula is in contrast to the 
tendency to expansion in Codex Bezae. It may be noted, however, that the 
Western text does not use dvoua in any essentially different manner from the 
Neutral or Ecclesiastical texts. The following points are of interest : 

(i.) In ii. 38 év 7G dvduare "Inood Xpicrod becomes év 7G dvduate 700 Kuplov 
"Inood Xporo in D Cyprian but év 7¢ dvéuare "Inood in Irenaeus, which may 
be original. (Cf. the textual facts in Mark i. 1.) 

(ii.) In vi. 8, in describing the miraculous activities of Stephen, D and 
Syr-hl™s add that he did these miracles 5:4 rod dvéuaros xuplov "Inoot Xpiorod, 

and the African Latin (h) has the simpler in nomine Iesu Christi. 
(iii.) In ix. 17 the Neutral text reads cai ériGeis éw adrdv ras xetpas ele 

xth., but h (D is missing) reads et inposuit ei manum in nomine Iesu Christi. 

(iv.) In ix. 40 Syr-hl™s Cyp add in nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi to 
TdB.0a avdornh. 

(v.) In x. 48 D reads év r@ dvéuart rod Kuplov "Inood Xpiorod. 

(vi.) In xiv. 10 the Western reading adds col déyw év 7G dvduare "Inood 
Xpicrod before dvdornht. 

(vii.) In xviii. 8 (D) Syr-hl™s etc. add did rod dvduaros ro0 Kuplov judy 
"Inood Xpiorod after or before xat éBarrtt{ovro. 

(viii.) In xix. 5 D Syr-hlms read els 7d 8voua Kuplov ’Inoot Xpiorod els dderw 



After the gift of the Spirit was given on the Day of Pentecost, Peter 
explained to the crowd that the glossolalia was the fulfilment of the well- 
known eschatological prophecy of Joel which ends “‘ whosoever shall call on 
the name of the Lord shall be saved.” ‘ The Lord,’ in the intention of Joel, 
is of course Jahveh, the god of Israel; but it is at least open to doubt whether 
Luke was not influenced by the growing custom of calling Jesus ‘ the Lord ’ 
and referring to him all passages in the LXX which allude to xipuos. 
Moreover, in the sequel, when the audience ask Peter what they must do 
he says, “‘ Repent, and be baptized each one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the 
Holy Spirit.” It is possible that the reference to baptism is editorial (see 
Vol. I. pp. 339 ff.), but if so it is all the more important as illustrating 
Luke’s own opinion. We are clearly confronted with an evolution of 
thought in which eschatological salvation, baptism ‘in the name,’ and the 
gift of the Spirit are concerned. The final step, which makes baptism effect 
a sacramental change of nature as in Catholic Christianity, is not taken, but 
it is imminent. Similarly, it is not actually stated that baptism confers 
the Spirit, but a close connexion between the two is implied and baptism is 
at least a pre-requisite. 

At Philippi when the jailor came to Pdul and Silas+ to ask what he 
must do to be saved, they answered, ‘‘ Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ 
and thou shalt be saved and thy house.” This is the second of the re- 
quisites for salvation which Paul quotes in Rom. x. 8 ff., and it may well 
be that Luke also believed that both faith and calling on the Lord were 
necessary, but he does not mention them together. It is, however, true that 
the jailor and his family were baptized as soon as Paul had preached to 
them, so that salvation is in practice, if not verbally, equated with baptism. 

Similarly in chap. xv., in Peter’s speech to the Church at the 
Apostolic Council, it is said that “ not through the Law of Moses but by 
the grace of the Lord Jesus shall they be saved.” Here too there is no 
reference to baptism. It is of course possible that Luke and Paul mean 
that for baptism (which gives salvation) faith is a necessary preliminary. 
This would have been the Catholic position at a later time, but it is signifi- 
cant that neither Acts nor the genuine Epistles* ever state clearly that 
salvation is achieved through baptism: belief in Jesus, or calling on his 
Name, are the requisites. 

Thus we come to the central problem of baptism in the Name of Jesus, 
as referred to in Acts. What powers or privileges did it confer? The 
evidence is definite but curiously inconsistent. Belief in Jesus (or in his 
Name), baptism, the remission of sins, the laying on of Apostolic hands, 
and the reception of the Spirit seem to have formed a single complex of 
associated ideas, any one of which might in any single narrative be either 
omitted or emphasized. 

Earlier evidence for Christian baptism is almost non-existent. The 
only reference to it in the Synoptics is at the end of the first gospel, 
‘and if these verses were written by Matthew it is evidence that at that 

1 xvi. 308. 2 Contrast Titus iii. 5. 


period in the early history of the Church it was already believed to be an 
institution which had been founded by Jesus himself. But since they 
are almost certainly one of the latest parts of the Gospel of Matthew, it 
becomes necessary to explain the silence of the gospels on the subject 
of this most important of the uses made of the Name of Jesus. Jesus 
himself, of his own power, did the other things which the disciples later 
did in his Name, but there is no record of his ever having baptized 
anyone. Why then does baptism appear so early and in so important 
away? Did Jesus himself baptize his followers or others, in spite of 
the silence of the gospels, or must the origins of the practice be looked 
for not in him but in other currents in the contemporary world ? 

In the opening verses of Acts it is explained that the followers of Jesus 
did not need the water-baptism of John, but were to receive the spirit- 
baptism of his. successor, as John himself had prophesied. After ‘ holy 
spirit’ had come upon them they would receive ‘power’ and would then be 
witnesses to Jesus throughout the earth. All this Jesus is represented as 
telling them before the Ascension ; there is no hint of baptism in his Name. 
Then comes Pentecost, and each is touched with a tongue of fire and receives 
the Holy Spirit. The Christians, at least according to Peter (ii. 33), received 
this spirit directly from Jesus, who in turn had it from the Father. Thus 
far there is complete agreement with the gospels—a continuation and fulfil- 
ment of their story. But immediately comes a new note. Peter had been 
explaining these things to an audience which had‘ seen but not shared 
the events of Pentecost, and aroused by his words they ask him and 
the other apostles what they are to do. “Then Peter said unto them, 
Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for 
the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For 
the promise is unto you and to your children, and to all that are distant, 
whomsoever the Lord our God shall call.” 

What is the explanation of this apparent contradiction ? It is so strik- 
ing that it seems hardly possible that even Luke could have ignored it. 
Probably it did not strike him as a contradiction,—which may have been 
because the crowd Paul was addressing was primarily non-Jewish. Luke 
may have assumed the necessity of water-baptism only as a preliminary for 
Gentile converts, not for Jews such as those who shared the gift of the 
Spirit at Pentecost.2, ‘The promise’ obviously refers to the gift of the 
Spirit which was to come after baptism—and baptism merely served to put 
the Gentiles in the same position for its reception as Jews. This view has 
much in its favour. Baptism of converts as a ceremonial preliminary was 
a Jewish custom. It had no sacramental efficacy, but neither had the 
baptism which Peter advocates. This, like John’s baptism, was for the 
remission of sins. The pronouncing of the Name of Jesus may merely 

1 See Addit. Notes 7 and 10. 

2 There are no references to baptism in that part of Acts credited to the 
Jerusalem source A, but it is full of the controversy over the use of the 
Name of Jesus in other connexions. Those things which were direct con- 
tinuations of Jesus’ practice, cures and exorcisms, were the source of the 

and the 


indicate the sect of Judaism—for Christianity has not yet become another 
religion—or may be the effective magical formula. 

The rest of the book to some extent supports the view that Gentiles 
were to be baptized with water in the Name of Jesus. In ii. 38 ff. there is 
the double probability that those addressed were not Jews, and that the 
reference to baptism is editorial (see Vol. I. pp. 239 ff. and Additional Notes 
7and 10). In chapter viii. the Samaritans and the Ethiopian eunuch * are 
baptized by Philip. In chapter x. it was to baptize Gentiles that Peter 
called for water, pointing out to the Jews that he could not very well avoid 
baptizing them (i.e. indicating ceremonially that they were proselytes), since 
the Holy Spirit had already been given to them as well as to the circumcised. 
And in chapter xix. the Ephesians were baptized by Paul. 

There remains the story of Paul’s baptism by Ananias. This is men- 
tioned in two accounts of the conversion (ix. 18, xxii. 16) but not in the 
third. Paul of course was not a Gentile, and that he was baptized at all is 
part of the general difficulty of the episode of Ananias of Damascus (see 
Addit. Note 15). 

In most of the accounts baptism and the gift of the Spirit are closely, 
though not necessarily causally, connected. ‘Then Peter said unto 
them, repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus 
Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy 
Ghost.” This is the norm from which the other accounts vary in one 
detail or another, but the broad lines of which they all follow. If this 
is editorial it is Luke’s own belief and the variations are due to the 
stories told by his sources. But the variation is, after all, not very 
great. In x. 43 it is the Name, and belief in Jesus, not baptism, which 
give remission of sins. In the story of the conversion of the Samaritans 
the gift of the Spirit followed, not on baptism by Philip in the Name of 
the Lord Jesus, but on the laying on of the hands of Peter and John. 
«* And when Simon saw that through the laying on of the Apostles’ hands 
the Holy Spirit was given he offered them money.” In ix. 14f. the 
sequence is not clear, but Ananias lays his hands on Paul and announces 
that he will receive his sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit. Paul’s 
sight returns and immediately he arises and is baptized. In x. 44 ff. 
the Gentiles first receive the Spirit while Peter is speaking and are then 
baptized, for “‘can any man forbid water, that these should not be 
baptized, which have received the Holy Spirit as well as we?”’? 

In these stories a stage preliminary to the sacramental baptism of the 
Church may be discerned. Jesus had the Holy Spirit—the use of his Name 
enables it to be conveyed ; but Acts still makes the distinction: baptism in 
the Name of Jesus is the preliminary to the recognition of a proselyte ; the 
gift of the Spirit (usually given by the laying on of hands) is a separate 
thing. The two, however, are so closely associated that they are often 
merely two parts of one ceremony. 

If at the beginning of the Apostolic age Jewish converts to Christianity 

1 It is, of course, possible that he may already have been a Jewish 
proselyte. Cf. pp. 418 f. 
2 Of. xi. 15 ff. and xv. 8f. 


had no water-baptism, what had been their preparation for the gift of the 
Spirit ? Probably the original requirement was simply belief in Jesus : 
** and by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which you 
could not be justified through the law of Moses.” But already with the 
baptism of Paul, if he was baptized, the precedent of baptism for everyone 
was being established. Insistence on baptism in the Name of Jesus as the 
source of the gift of the Spirit, not the preliminary to it, completes the cycle. 

Acts xix. 1-6 shows that the point of view of Luke when he wrote the 
second part of Acts, or possibly of the source which he followed, was ap- 
proximating more closely to that of the Catholic Church. The story tells 
how Paul found in Ephesus disciples—which must mean Christians—who, 
to his surprise, had not received the Holy Spirit. His question, “ To 
what then were you baptized ?” shows that he associated baptism and 
the gift of the Spirit. The reply of the Ephesians was that they had been 
baptized with John’s baptism. Paul then explained that this was in- 
sufficient, baptized them in the Name of the Lord Jesus, and “ when 
Paul laid his hands on them” they received the Holy Spirit. The story 
is tantalizingly obscure. There are three factors in it: baptism in the 
Name of the Lord Jesus, the laying on of the hands of an apostle, and the 
gift of the Spirit. The actual form of the preceding verses giving Paul’s 
inquiry about the Spirit and baptism suggests the later Johannine and 
Catholic view, but the reference to the laying on of apostolic hands is 
reminiscent of the story of Peter and the Samaritan converts. 

The ‘ laying on of hands’ is not only a well-known Jewish custom, The laying 
but frequent in all ages and in all countries. It implies the passage of ° ° hands 
power by the contact of one person with another. It is therefore common 
as a means of healing,! and by a natural transition of thought passed on to 
the imparting of special functions, or finally of supernatural power. Thus 
it was the gesture used in blessing, and especially at the ordination of a 
Rabbi (the Seminkha). It is this last which has often been regarded as an 
analogue of Christian baptism and ordination. There are apparently a 
few passages in Rabbinic literature which suggest that the Seminkha con- 
ferred the gift of inspiration, but, though this highly controversial question 
can only be discussed properly by those who have special knowledge of 
Rabbinic literature, it seems probable that the Rabbis did not claim the 
gift of inspiration, and cannot have claimed to transmit it. 

In the Synoptic Gospels the laying on of hands is described as a means 
of healing employed by Jesus in Mark i. 40 ff., v. 23, vi. 5, viii. 22 ff.? and 
in parallel passages, and also in the Lucan summary in Lukeiv. 40. It also 
appears in Mark x. 13-16 and Luke xxiv. 50 as an act of blessing. 

In Acts ix. 17 Ananias cures Paul of blindness by putting his hands on 
him, and in xxviii. 8 Paul heals the father of Publius by the same means. 
This apostolic use of the ‘laying on of hands’ as a means of healing is 
reflected in the spurious conclusion of Mark (xvi. 18), where Jesus is made 

1 Its effectiveness is doubtless due to the strong suggestion of well-being 
made by contact with a healthy and highly vitalized person. 
2 Mk. i. 31 may also be an example. 



to promise the Eleven that “ they shall lay their hands on the sick and they 
shall recover.” 

In two places in Acts the laying on of hands is the gesture of ordination 
to a special function—of the Seven in vi. 6 and of Paul and Barnabas in 
xiii. 1. The development of this custom can be seen in the Pastoral 
epistles (1 Tim. iv. 14 and 2 Tim. i. 6) and in the Catholic sacrament of 

Most important of all, in viii. 16 f. the laying on of the hands of the 
Apostles is regarded as the cause of the gift of the Spirit to the Samaritans, 
and in xix. 1 ff. is apparently the direct cause of the reception of the Spirit 
by the Ephesian Christians, but here it is closely related to instead of being 
distinguished from baptism in the Name of the Lord Jesus. The direct 
descendant of the practice indicated by these passages is obviously the 
Catholic association of Baptism and Confirmation, so closely combined 
yet never quite identified, and the difficulty of interpreting Acts finds its 
analogue in the difficulty which the Church historian finds in distinguishing 
between the gift of the Spirit in Baptism and in Confirmation. 

It will be seen that Acts and the Pauline Epistles both bring us to the 
verge, if not over the verge, of the fully developed system of practice and 
belief which is essential to Catholicism. This system appears in the New 
Testament in the Gospel of John. To discuss it in detail is outside the 
scope of this note, but attention may be drawn to the following points. 

The Johannine theory is stated at the beginning and end of the 
Gospel: ‘“‘ But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become 
the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name” (i. 12). “ But 
these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son 
of God, and that believing ye might have life through his name” (xx. 31). 
These are the classical expressions of John’s theology, in which immortality 
is the goal and Jesus’ Name the means. Their importance cannot be 
over-emphasized. The Church which formulated them was no longer a 
body of preachers exhorting men to repent in expectation of the coming 
Kingdom of God, but a supernaturally endowed society which could give 
salvation through the power of the Name of Jesus.1_ Within this society 
petitions to God are answered, if made in the Name of Jesus, and the 
essential and sole means of entry to this society is Baptism, which 
conveys the Spirit and effects a miraculous change in the nature of 
those who undergo it. 

The discovery that historical evidence is not always consistent makes 
the task of its analysis more difficult, but is entirely to be expected. 

1 It is interesting to note that the Gospel of John has moved away from 
the Markan tradition which represents Jesus as surprising everyone by 
working miracles by ‘authority’ and not by means of anyone else’s ‘name.’ 
In John Jesus works miracles in ‘his Father’s name’ (cf. John x. 25), and 
emphasizes that requests made in his Name will be granted both by him and 
his Father. Cf. God’s concern for his own name, e.g. 1 Sam. x., xii. 22; 
Jeremiah xiv. 20f.; Ezekiel xx. 9 and 14. 


Christian usage was the direct result of the currents of belief prevalent in 
the world in which it was born, but their assimilation and application was 
not a deliberate and self-conscious one. The great difficulty in approach- 
ing a problem of this kind by a study which places it in its historical per- 
spective is that it is so easy to forget how completely this perspective was 
lacking in the people whose ideas are being studied. They were not 
aware of the causes which lay behind their beliefs or of the parallels to 
them which existed. They reacted to the world in which they found them- 
selves in the idiom and with the interpretative ideas to which they were 
accustomed: the value of historical perspective is the recovery of a point 
of view which has disappeared from the world and its interpretation against 
the background from which it grew. 

The formulae which embody the beliefs held in the early centuries of 
Christianity about the importance and power of the Name of Jesus are still 
uttered in Christian services. ‘‘ Our Father which art in Heaven, hallowed 
be thy Name,” and petitions which conclude “and this we ask in the Name 
of Jesus Christ our Lord” are constantly being repeated, but those who 
use them do so as a rule because of habit engendered by a long tradition, 
not because they attach to them any clear meaning or pronounce them with 
any passion of affirmation... The theory is dead: the practice remains. 
It is somewhat difficult to break through the resulting casualness and to 
realize completely that the writer of Acts and his contemporaries in no way 
shared it. Theirs was a world full of spirits, both good and bad, and they 
were convinced of the value of using the Name of Jesus in their attempts to 
deal with these spirits. 

[For the most useful literature on this subject see W. Heitmiiller, 
Taufe und Abendmahl bei Paulus; H. Windisch, Taufe und Sunde im 
dltesten Christentum; J. V. Bartlet and K. Lake in Hastings, Encyclo- 
paedia of Religion and Ethics, ii. pp. 375-390; A. Seeberg, Der Taufe im 
N.T.8, 1913; G. Kittel, ‘ Die Wirkungen der christliche Wassertaufe nach 
den N.T.,’ in Studien und Kritiken (1914), pp. 25 ff.; W. Heitmiiller, Im 
Namen Jesu; R. Hirzel, Der Name (Abhandlungen der sdchsische Gesell- 
schaft der Wissenschaften, xxxvi. 2), 1918; E.C. Achelis in Zeitschrift fiir 

1 The fossilized expressions of that once vivid belief are found in many 
of the services of the church. All the ceremonies of blessing and consecrating 
are in general both exorcism and eisorcism—sometimes in the Name of Jesus, 
sometimes of the Trinity. Benediction is actually the complement of exorcism 
—it prevents devils entering in. 

The third grade in the minor orders of the clergy, below those of acolyte 
and reader, gives the right to exorcise devils ceremonially. Aside from the 
ancient rite of exorcism in connexion with Baptism, which is still retained in 
the Roman ritual, a form of service for the exorcising of possessed persons 
may be found. The exorcist asks the devil his name, then laying his right 
hand on the head of the demoniac he says: ‘I exorcise thee, unclean spirit, 
in the name of Jesus Christ; tremble, O Satan, thou enemy of the faith, thou 
foe of mankind, who hast brought death into the world, who hast deprived 
men of life and hast rebelled against justice, thou seducer of mankind, thou 
root of evil, thou source of avarice, discord and envy.” 

and the 

The Lucan 


Pastoraltheologie (1889), pp. 58 ff., 441 ff., 481 ff., 525 ff.; J. Behm, Die 
Handauflegung im Urchristenthum; A.J. Maclean in Hastings, Dictionary of 
the Apostolic Church, ii. pp. 115 ff.; I. Abrahams, Studies in Pharisaism and 
the Gospels, i. pp. 36 ff.; Strack-Billerbeck, Kommentar zum N.T. i. 
pp. 110 ff. and ii. pp. 647ff.; R. Reitzenstein, Die Vorgeschichte der 
christliche Taufe, 1929 (but cf. the admirable review of H. H. Schaeder in 
Gnomon, v. pp. 353 ff.).] 

Note XII. Tae Communism or AcTs Il. AND IV.-VI. AND THE 

By Kirsopp LAKE 

Three questions must be clearly distinguished ; unfortunately only 
the first can be answered with any certainty : 
(i.) What was the view of the editor of Acts ? 
(ii.) How far was he using different sources, and what is the relation 
of these to the two ‘summaries’ ? 
(iii.) What were the actual facts of history ? 

(i.) The stories of Ananias and of the Seven are the best information 
as to the mind of the editor. Whatever the facts implied in the summaries 
in Acts ii. and iv. may really have been, he cannot have intended them 
to contradict his interpretation of the plain meaning of these stories. But 
the narrative is not written quite so well as some in Acts, and it may be 
doubted whether it has not suffered in transmission. Three points stand 
out. (a) That Ananias died suddenly, under circumstances which led 
the Church to see in his death the punishment for some offence, is almost 
certainly historical. (6) The words attributed to Peter are quite likely to 
be an exegesis of the events by Luke, to suit his view of the administration 
of the early Church. They are all the more important for the reconstruc- 
tion of Luke’s view. The narrative itself does not make clear what was 
the offence of Ananias; but this is elucidated by the conversation 
between Peter and Sapphira, which is intended to explain the condensed 
statement évordicato dé THs TyuAs, and shows that the offence was a 
false statement as to the amount obtained by the sale (see note on 
évoodioato in v. 2). (c) The Seven were appointed to administer the 
‘dole’ given to ‘widows,’ because this task interfered too much with 
the main work of the Twelve. 

The picture of the early Church presented by Luke then becomes 
plain. He thought that all the Christians were living together. But 
this scarcely means that they were all still in the Upper Room. It is 
true that éri 7rd aird, in ii. 44 and 47, might be interpreted to mean 
actually living together ; but it is almost impossible to believe that after 
saying there were 3000 converts the writer can have thought that they 
were all in one house. The expenses of life were covered by the 
periodic sale of property, and by the use of all possessions to help the 
needy. The imperfects érirpackov, Sieyépifov ought to be pressed. 
The central feature of the system implied is the creation of a fund by the 


periodic sale of property, which was disposed of, not all at once, but 
as occasion arose. The reason for describing this system as communism 
is because the Christians deemed all things ‘common,’ and did not 
recognize any exclusive right in private property. But in view of the 
recent use of the word to describe a different and wholly modern economic 
system, ‘communism’ is a doubtful phrase. Luke is not thinking 
of ‘communism’ of production, or of possession, for though no one 
claimed an exclusive right over his own property, it was still regarded 
as in some sense his own. Moreover, the fund can scarcely be called 
‘communistic’ in the modern sense, for it was created by sales, used for 
the poor, and administered by the apostles. It may be added with some 
probability that Luke saw in this picture of life devoid of poverty the 
fulfilment of Deut. xv. 4 (‘‘save when there shall be no poor among you”), 
which so emphatically states that there shall be no poverty among the 
people of God. 

But after a short time the ‘communistic’ experiment broke down The failure 
for two reasons. First, owing to dissension which arose between the path RR 
Hellenists and Hebrews about the doles received by the widows in the 
‘daily ministration,’ so that seven administrators had to be appointed 
to relieve the Apostles; secondly, because these administrators were 
killed or driven out of Jerusalem by the Jews. This much is clear, 
though it is far from certain what the author meant by Hellenists and 
Hebrews. (See also Vol. I. pp. 306 ff.) 

This question has been discussed in Additional Note 7. It is usually Hellenists 
taken to mean Greek-speaking and Aramaic Jews. But all the linguistic rye ane 
evidence shows that “EAAnviorjs merely means a Greek, and that 
“EBpaios means a Jew, so that the writer may have meant Greeks and 
Jews, and thought that there were Greeks in the Church from the day 
of Pentecost. This is contrary to exegetical tradition, which has unani- 
mously followed Chrysostom, who however admitted that he was doubt- 
ful, but is more in accord with the general usage of the words, and 
probably the intention of the writer. 

The appointment of the Seven presents no such hard problem, so far The Seven. 
as the author’s meaning is concerned. He regards them as selected 
either by the Apostles or by the whole Church (see note on vi. 3) in order 
to look after the administration of the dole to the widows. It is not 
impossible that he had in mind the parallel appointment of the Elders 
to assist Moses (Exod. xviii. 13 ff.). It is also obvious that he thought 
that the dole had been raised by the communistic methods described in 
ii, 41-47 and iv. 32-35. 

(ii.) Can we discriminate the sources in the complex of narratives The 
which begins with ii. 1 and ends with vi. 6 ? scarey: 
A. von Harnack * has argued that in Acts ii.-v. Luke used two forms 
of the tradition of Jerusalem, J* and J®. J* supplied iii. 1-iv. 31, and 
J” supplied ii. 1-41 and v. 17-42, each giving accounts, in slightly 

1 See Vol. II. pp. 126 ff. and 139 ff. 


differing arrangements of order and expression, of the same series of 
incidents—a miraculous episode, a speech by Peter, interference by the 
Jewish authorities, and the outpouring of the Spirit on the disciples. 

This much seems probable : is it possible to assign to either of these 
sources or to the editor the two summaries (ii. 41-47 and iv. 32-35), the 
story of Barnabas (iv. 36-37), the story of Ananias (v. 1-10), and the 
story of the appointment of the Seven in consequence of dissatisfaction 
among the recipients of charity ? 

It is tempting at first sight to assign the first summary (ii. 41-47) to 
J*, and the second (iv. 32-35) to J*. I did this in Vol. Il. pp. 145 ff. 
But the investigation of H. J. Cadbury (see Additional Note 31) shows 
that Luke was in the habit either of repeating the summaries of his own 
composition, or of repeating, though with considerable variation, part or 
all of a summary which he found in one of his sources. Thus there is 
considerable probability that the two summaries in ii. and iv. are doub- 
lets, representing only one original document. Was this source J* or J°, 
or was it Luke’s own manufacture, and which is the more original form ? 
The point cannot be clearly decided. In favour of the form in ii. 43 ff. 
is that éri rd avré in vs, 47 is one of Torrey’s strongest arguments for 
an Aramaic original (see Vol. II. pp. 55 and 143 f). If this argument _ 
be conceded, ii. 41 ff. must come from a source, and is more original 
than iv. 32 ff. But the Aramaic problem is still unsolved. It must 
be left an open question whether the possible explanation.of éri 7d airé 
as an Aramaism is evidence against the editorial nature of the summary, 
or the editorial nature of the summary is evidence against the theory of 
Aramaism (see note ad loc.). On the qther hand, the reference to fear in 
ii. 43 does not suit this context nearly so well as that of v. 5 and 11 
where it recurs. Also, as is shown in Addit. Note 31, when a summary 
is used in two places there is a slight balance of probability that the 
second place is the original one. 

However this may be, the improbability that J* supplied the 
summary in iv. 32 ff. is shown by the fact that v. 12 ff. are logically 
the continuation of iv. 29-31, and iv. 32-v. 11 completely destroy 
this logical continuity. This can be seen by reading iv. 29-31 and 
v. 12 ff. continuously : 

**¢ And now, Lord, look upon their threatenings : and grant unto thy 
servants to speak thy word with all boldness, while thou stretchest 
forth thy hand to heal; and that signs and wonders may be done 
through the name of thy holy servant Jesus.’ And when they had 
prayed, the place was shaken wherein they were gathered together ; and 
they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they spake the word of 
God with boldness. And by the hands of the apostles were many signs 
and wonders wrought among the people; and they were all with one 
accord in Solomon’s porch. But of the rest durst no man join himself 
to them: howbeit the people magnified them ; and believers were the 
more added to the Lord, multitudes both of men and women ; insomuch 
that they even carried out the sick into the streets, and laid them on 
beds and couches, that, as Peter came by, at the least his shadow might 


overshadow some one of them. And there also came together the multi- 
tude from the cities round about Jerusalem, bringing sick folk, and 
them that were vexed with unclean spirits: and they were healed 
every one.” 

Thus it is probable that v. 12-16, or at least the beginning of it (see 
note on p. 52), belongs to the same source as iv. 29-31, that isto J*. This 
view is confirmed by the fact that J* is specifically a ‘Peter and John’ 
source, and J” is an ‘Apostles’ source. Consequently the intervening 
sections, the story of Barnabas and of Ananias and the summary in 
iv. 32 ff., do not belong to J*, but to another source. Was this J”, or 
yet another? (a) In favour of J° is that, as was shown above, the 
reference to fear in ii. 43 is far more suitable to v. 11 (the end of the 
story of Ananias). It is therefore an attractive guess that J” originally 
contained the stories of Barnabas and Ananias immediately after the end 
of Peter’s speech, and then was concluded by the summary. Read thus 
it presents not the slightest break : “ And with many other words did he 
testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. 
Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same 
day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they 
continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in 
breaking of bread, and in prayers. And Joses, who by the apostles was 
surnamed Barnabas (which is, being interpreted, the son of consolation), 
a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought 
the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But a certain man named 
Ananias, with Sapphira, his wife, sold a possession, . . . and, carrying 
her forth, buried her by her husband. And great fear came upon 
all the church, and upon as many as heard these things. And all that 
believed were together, and had all things common.” (Notice that 
ii, 43a is a doublet of v. 11.) In this case the summary in iv. 32 ff. is 
an editorial repetition of ii. 44 ff. to lead up to what follows. 

(b) The alternative is that the stories of Barnabas and Ananias were 
in general circulation, together with iv. 32 ff, which is an admirable intro- 
duction to them, and were not included either in J* or J. Luke inserted 
them, somewhat violently, into J*, separating iv. 29-31 from its proper 
conclusion, v. 12-16. A somewhat similar readjustment of material, 
chiefly in order to find a place for new stories, can be seen by comparing 
Mark i. 16-33 with the complex of passages, Luke iv. 16-v. 11, where 
it is clear that Luke disarranged the order of Mark, and partially rewrote 
its language, in order to make room for two new stories—the Sermon 
at Nazareth and the Miraculous Draught of Fishes. 

Between,these two possibilities no decision can be made. Both explain 
the facts, and each has its attractive features; but I incline to the 
second, because it is more in accordance with Luke’s methods. 

It is now possible to return to the summaries, 

As is stated in the note on ii. 41 the summary begins, in the The 
intention of the writer, with vs. 41 rather than vs. 42, though vs, 41 is Su™msties. 
really the legitimate end of the preceding narrative. But apart from 
this it seems to be made up out of phrases recurring elsewhere. In general 



the best context may be assumed to be the original. The evidence can 
be most clearly perceived when arranged thus?: 

(1) ii. 41. 
ol pev ody dmodeEduevor 
Tov byov avrod éBarrl- 
cOncav, kal mpooeréOnoav 
év TH huepa éxelvy Wuxal 
woel Tproxeldiar. 

(2) ii, 42. 

jioav 5é mpooxaprepovdvres 
TH Sibaxy TOY drocré\wy 
kal TH Kowwvla, TH KAdoet 
Tov dprov kal Tats mpoo- 

(3) ii, 48a. 
éyelvero 5¢ mdon WuxT 

(4) ii. 48b, 

modda 6é tépara Kal on- 
peta Oia Tv aroorb\wy 

(5) li, 44-45. 

mdvres 5 ol micredoavTes 
émt 7d adrd elxov dravra 
kowd, Kal TH KTHpara Kal 
Tas bmrdptes émlarpacKov 
kal dvewépifov abra waow 
xaddre dy tis xpelav elev" 

(6) ii. 46a. 

Kad’ tpépay Te mpookap- 
Tepovvres Opobuuaddy év 
T@ lep@, 

i. 14. 

otra mdvTes Foay mpoo- 
KaprepodvrTes duobupaddv 
TH mpocevyyn adv yuvackiv 
kal Mapa. 7H wntpl Inood 
kal odv Tots ddedpois 

v. Fi. 
kal éyévero péBos péyas 
éd’ bAnv Thy éexkdyolav 
kal éri mdvras Tovs aKxov- 
ovras Tava. 

v. 12a, 

dud Te THY xELpoy ToV 
adroorédwy éyelvero onpeta 
kal Tépara moda év TO 

iv. 32, 34-35. 

Tod dé wAnPouvs TeV mic- 
TevodvTwy jv Kapdla Kal 
Wuxn pla, Kal obdé els Te 
T&v brapxdvTwy abT@ ee- 
you UWiov elvar, adr’ jv 
avrots mavTa Kowd... 
ovdé yap évdens Fv tis év 
avrots* Sco. yap KTHropes 
xwpluv 7 olkiav barhpxor, 
mw obdvres Epepov Tas TeL- 
pas Tay mwirpackopévwy 
kal érifovy mapa Tovs 
mwbdas Tay drooré\wv* die- 
dldero bé Exdorw xabdr dv 
Tis xpelav elev. 

v. 12b. 

kalfoav 6uo0unadov raves 
év TH Brog Todopdvos. 


ii. 46 

xa0’ tuepay Te mpoo- 
Kaprepobvres dmobupaddév 
év Tw lep@, KdOvrés TE 
kat olkov dprov, pere- 
AdpBavov TpoPpijs év ayad- 
Ndoee «Kal adpeddryre 

v. 5b. 

kal éyévero PébBos péyas 
él wdvras Tovs GkovovTas. 

i. 14a, 
ovro mdvTes Hoav mpoc- 
Kaprepodyres dmobupaddrv 
TH mpocevxy- 

1 It has seemed best to print here as well as in Addit. Note 31 this tabular 
arrangement of the text, as the arguments can scarcely be followed in either 

place without it. 

xi THE 

(7) ii. 46b. 

kAGvrés Te Kar’ olkov 
dprov, weTe\duBavov rpo- 
pis év dyadNidoe Kal 
agedérnrt kapdlas, 

(8) ii. 47a. 
alvodyres tov Oedv Kal 
éxovres xdpiv mpds Sdov 


ii. 42. 
jioav dé mpocxaprepobyres 
TH didaxy TOv drocrb\wy 
kal TH Kowwvla, TH KA\doe 
Tod dprov kal Tais mpoc- 

iv. 33b. 

xdpis Te peyddn hv én 
wavras avrous. 


v. 18b. 

GX’ éueydduvev adrovs 6 

Tov Nady. 

v. 14. 
paddov Se mpoceribevro 
misTevovTes TH Kuply 
wAHOn avip&v te Kal -yu- 

In these passages the repeated and cumulative similarity certainly 
indicates community of origin; but in no case does probability suggest 
that the context in ii. 42 ff. is preferable to that of the parallels, and in 
(3), (4), and (5) it indicates that the parallels give the better sense. 
There is thus considerable reason for thinking that iv. 32 ff. was originally 
the appropriate introduction to the stories of Barnabas and Ananias. It 
had been used previously by Luke in ii. 42 ff. in combination with 
fragments from other sources. One of these other sources is the end of the 
story of Ananias, v. 11, which supplied the ‘fear’ passage. Another was 
possibly J*, which may have contained v. 12. 

Therefore ii. 42 ff. is almost certainly editorial and borrowed from 
the source (J° or another) which provided iv. 32 ff.; iv. 32 ff. and 
v. 12 ff. may be derived from sources. 

Thus the final—though quite tentative—conclusions to the small but Conclusions. 
complicated problem of analysing the ‘ narrative’ and ‘summary’ material 
in this section are probably these : 

(a) ii. 1-40, narrative, from J”. 

(b) ii. 41-47, summary, an editorial duplication of iv. 32-35, but 

possibly nearer the original form of the text. 

(c) iii. l-iv. 31, narrative, from J*, 

(d) iv. 32-35, summary, possibly from J” but more probably from 

the original introduction to the stories of Barnabas and 
Ananias, and almost certainly considerably revised by the 
editor of Acts. 

(e) iv. 36-v. 11, narrative, the stories of Barnabas and of Ananias, 

possibly from J® but more probably a separate tradition. 

(f) v. 12-16, summary, possibly composed by the editor, but it 

probably contains the end of the J* source. 

(g) v. 17-41, narrative, the end of the J” source. 

(9) ii, 47d. 


6 6€ xdpros mpocerifer 
Tovs owouévouvs Kae’ 
ju€pay érl rd abr. 

The remaining section which has to be discussed in this note is vi. vi. 1-6. 
1-6. It is necessarily connected—at least for a commentator—with the 
preceding narratives by the reference to the daily administration of alms, 



and it is impossible that this connexion was not also made by the editor 
of Acts, to whom the appointment of the Seven is not only the beginning 
of the persecution of Stephen with its far-reaching consequences, but also 
is the end of the communistic experiment described in the earlier 
chapters. But here the connexion ends. Few points in the Quellen- 
kritik of Acts are so generally recognized to be certain as that with 
chapter vi. Luke begins to use a new source, or more probably complex 
of sources, which can only very doubtfully be identified with any of those 
used in the earlier chapters. The exact analysis of Acts vi.-xv. is doubt- 
less impossible, though some tentative suggestions may be advanced.} 
For the present purpose the important point is that vi. 1-6 is differ- 
entiated from the ‘ communistic’ account of J°in two ways. (a) Instead 
of the picture of peace and contentment offered by the summaries in 
chapters ii. and iv., in which everyone is contented with a distribution 
‘according to his needs,’ there is a less pleasant if more probable picture 
of dissatisfaction among the poor and inability to stand the pressure 
of the situation among the apostles. (0) The Christians are called paOyrai 
(see note on vi. 1 and Addit. Note 30)—a designation which though 
common in the rest of Acts is not found in i-v. or in the Pauline Epistles. 

Nevertheless, though clearly there is as good a case for distinguishing 
the source of this section from J* or J as there is for separating these 
two from each other, Luke’s opinion is clear—he wishes it to be under- 
stood that the ‘ communist’ experiment broke down owing to the increase 
of members in the Church. The Seven were specially appointed by the 
church as administrative officers. Persecution drove them out, and this 
paved the way for a description of the dpurreia of Stephen and Philip. 

How far is it probable that vi. 1 ff. should be classed with the 
‘summaries’ rather than with the continuous narrative? The possibility 
cannot be excluded, and obviously vi. 1 may be an editorial addition 
intended, as the summaries generally are, to connect what has gone before 
with what is to come. 

Harnack thinks that it may belong to the Antiochian source (A) 
which was certainly used in chapter xi. and elsewhere. . But the whole 
background of the story of Stephen is in Jerusalem. There are, in fact, 
three tenable views about the whole story : 

(a) It is taken from the Antiochian source and preserves the tradition 
of his followers who fled to that city. 

(6) It is a genuine piece of the reminiscences of the church in 
Jerusalem, though not part ef J* or J°. 

(c) It is Luke’s compressed edition of pieces of tradition from more 
than one source, not perhaps always quite consistent with each other (see 
Vol. II. pp. 148 ff. and the note on vii. 57, and for the speech in chap. vii. 
see Addit. Note 32). 

On the whole the third of these possibilities seems to me somewhat the 
most probable, but no certain judgement can be made. 

1 See Vol. II. pp. 147 ff., the notes in the commentary on vi. 1-xv. 35 (p. 63), 
vii, 2-53, vii. 57, xi. 19 ff., and Addit. Note 16. 

TT a cma 


(iii.) What were the actual facts? In other words, how far can we The facts. 
trust Luke to have interpreted correctly the facts described in his 
sources, and how far is it likely that he modified their statements in 
accordance with his own opinion? The answer to this question depends 
mainly on our general judgement on Luke’s methods and reliability. 
Opinions range from Ramsay, who in his later writings scarcely admits 
the possibility of error in Acts on any point, to Loisy who scarcely 
accepts anything in the earlier chapters as correct or even as the writing 
of the original author. Any discussion is obviously very subjective and 
largely depends on the cumulative effect of details which cannot be 
repeated in writing but which are always present in thought. 

My own personal opinion is that Luke always produces an in- 
telligible story, which is very rarely open to decisive criticism, but that 
this superficial intelligibility breaks down rather badly when we are 
able to compare Luke’s narrative with other contemporary documents, 
such as Mark and the Pauline Epistles, Moreover, the points where 
it breaks down are often such that without the parallel documents 
no one would have the faintest suspicion that the narrative is not 

For these reasons I feel doubtful about the complete accuracy of 
Luke’s account of the communistic experiment and the appointment of 
the Seven, but even more doubtful whether it is possible to go behind 
his narrative and reconstruct a more accurate picture of what really 
happened, All that can be done is toindicate points which may modify 
the general view which we derive from Acts or throw light on special 
details in the narrative. 

Two opposite possibilities have often been suggested. Neither can 
be demonstrated : neither can be disproved. 

(a) In favour of the ‘communistic’ view of the summaries repre- The ‘ 
senting all things as held in common, so that no one was in want, it may tic’ view. 
be argued that this would be the logical result of the teaching of Jesus,+ 
Certainly he enjoined on the rich that they should sell their property 
and give it to the poor, and offered rewards in the future to those who 
sacrificed riches for his sake. He had undoubtedly blessed the poor, 
and there is no similar beatitude extant on those who have wealth. He 
did not say that the door of the Kingdom would be closed to the rich, 
but the opportunity afforded to them was compared to a camel trying to 
go through the eye of a needle. 

Tt might well be argued that such teaching would naturally produce 
the ‘communism’ of Acts, which represents not so much an economic 
theory as a ‘horror of wealth’—Tertullian’s fastidium opulentiae. But 
the weak spot in such an argument is that in point of fact this ‘com- 
munism’ does not reappear in Acts, and is not mentioned in the Pauline 
Epistles, It may have been tried for a few months, but if so it died an 
early death, 

1 In addition to the usual commentaries, or even to such books as Troeltsch’s 
Soziallehren der christl. Kirchen, it is well to read R. v. Péhlmann, Geschichte der 
sozialen Frage in der antiken Welt, vol. ii. (2nd ed.) pp. 587 ff. 



The Tamhui. 


(b) On the other hand it may be argued that nothing really existed 
in Jerusalem except an organized charity which was quite consistent 
with Jewish practice. 

The picture of communism is only found in one of Luke’s sources. 
It is not mentioned or implied in the Antiochian source, or in J*; it 
may belong to J”, but more probably was found by Luke in the introduc- 
tion to the stories of Barnabas and Ananias. Is it more than an idyllic 
generalization from these two stories ? 

Professor Cadbury’s note on the Summaries (Addit. Note 31) suggests 
that they are often generalizations from special cases, Taken by itself the 
story of Barnabas and his gift is typical of the good man who honestly 
contributed to the charitable funds of the church, and Ananias is typical 
of the bad man who did so dishonestly. Both types are common in all 
periods ; rich men constantly contribute to charity, and their motives 
are not always single. The question is whether the summary is correct 
in saying, or at least implying, that all rich men in the Christian com- 
munity sold their property and gave it to the apostles. 

The reason for doubting its accuracy is the very significant passage 
in Peter’s speech to Ananias, ‘ While it (the property) remained did it 
not remain yours? And when it was sold, was it not in your power?” 
This must mean that the offence was his dishonest pretence, not his 
failure to sell property for the good of the poor. But this is not the 
communistic picture suggested by the summary, and we have reasonable 
ground for saying that though Luke thought that the practice of the 
church was communism, his source originally implied only wide and 
generous charity, so organized that the apostles were its immediate 
recipients and its distributors to the poor. 

Moreover this system of organized charity is almost the same as that 
which prevailed in Judaism in the second century and probably in the 
first.1 According to the Rabbinic accounts Jewish practice discouraged 
charity given directly to needy persons, but in each municipality there 
were two collectors who every Friday went around to the market and 
to private houses to collect contributions either in money or in kind. 
On Fridays there was also a distribution to those in want, in accordance 
with their needs? by a committee of two or more. The poor who 
actually belonged to the town were given a weekly dole sufficient for 
fourteen meals, The fund from which this dole was made was called 
the Kuppah (np) or ‘basket.’ No one could claim support from it who 
had a week’s food in his house. 

Besides the Kuppah there was also enbidice collection of food called 
the Tamhuti (non) or ‘tray.’ This was made daily, instead of weekly, 

1 There is no direct evidence for the first century; but that is because 
the Talmud is the only document we have which deals with the subject. The 
evidence is all collected by Strack, vol. ii. pp. 641-647, and by G. F. Moore, 
Judaism, ii. pp. 162-179, especially pp. 176 ff. 

2 Needs appear to have been liberally interpreted, and a man of good position 
who had fallen on evil days was helped with due regard to his former state 
(see Strack Z,c.). 


from house to house, for those who were in actual need of food for the 
coming day. 

It is obvious that these facts throw a flood of light on the ‘daily 
ministration’ of Acts vi. 1, and the natural explanation of the story is 
that the Christians formed a separate community in so far as they 
collected and distributed a ‘basket’ and a ‘tray’ independently of the 
rest of the Jewish population. 

Apparently it is not known whether the distribution of charity in 
Jerusalem was carried out by the synagogues in the various wards of 
the city, by the Temple authorities, or by both. The last view would 
seem the most probable, but of course our information is derived from 
sources which are later than the destruction of the Temple, and, though 
they probably represent in general a system which was in use far earlier, 
the exact relation between Temple and synagogue authorities is just one 
of the points where we do well not to be too certain. If, however, we 
may make the double assumption—both parts of which are extremely 
probable—that at least some charity was managed by the synagogues, 
and that the Christians regarded themselves as and were organized as a 
‘synagogue of the Nazarenes’ (see note on v. 11), it is clear that the 
organized charity implied in Acts vi. is exactly similar to that described 
in Rabbinical writings. The stories of Barnabas and Ananias are merely 
a presentation of extreme cases, 

The collection and distribution of the Christian ‘basket’ and ‘tray’ 
were at first managed by the apostles, but the work became too much 
for them.2 They then appointed the Seven to take over their work. 
The number seven has many associations in Jewish thought, but far the 
most probable in this case is supported by the fact that Jerusalem was 
divided into seven wards. 

Further than this it is hard to go. The questions are inevitably raised, The Seven. 
Who were the Seven, personally and apart from their administrative 
functions, and why were they chosen? Unfortunately neither question 
can be answered, and it is only possible to indicate certain lines of 
thought along which critics have worked. 

It has been shown on pp. 37 ff. that though the Twelve were prob- 
ably a group of distinction and influence, the apostles—a wider circle 
—were the leading factor in the life of the church. Barnabas, for instance, 
was an apostle, but not one of the Twelve. It is therefore possible that 
the Seven were themselves apostles before they were appointed as 
‘Charity Commissioners’ The implication of Luke’s words is much 
rather that the Seven were not apostles, but it cannot be doubted that he 
—as distinct from his sources—was inclined to identify the Twelve with 
the apostles, as the later church did. The question thus remains open, 

1 Is there a reference to this in the obscure émovctoy dprov in the Lord’s 
Prayer? Does it mean ‘keep us from the necessity of accepting the charity of 
the tray’? Or is it a prayer for the continuance of the ‘tray’ as Mark vi. 8 
uh Eprov rather suggests ? 

2 Moore quotes an interesting parallel: Rabbi Jose ben Halafta prayed that 
his lot might be among the collectors rather than the distributors. 


The Seven 



though it must be admitted that the problem of the two Philips—the 
Apostle and the Evangelist—-would be greatly simplified if they were 
really one person. 

It is in any case clear that the Seven—or at least Stephen and 
Philip—did not owe the whole of their importance in the church to their 
position as charity commissioners. It has often been pointed out that 
they never appear again in the exercise of their administrative functions, 
but as preachers, controversialists, and missionaries. What, then, is the 
exact meaning of their ordination by the Apostles ? 

Ordination by the laying on of hands is a Jewish practice (see 
p- 137), and is one of the many examples in which this method was 
used to pass on from one person to another some power or responsibility 
or function. The meaning of Acts is that the apostles ‘ordained’ 
the Seven to administer charity. It does not necessarily mean more. 

Nevertheless, a long line of critics, of whom Harnack is the most 
famous representative, have been struck by the fact that the Seven all 
have Greek names, and were appointed to satisfy the grumbling of the 
‘ Hellenists’ (whatever that means) against the Hebrews. It has there- 
fore been suggested that the Seven were really the leaders of the 
‘ Hellenistic’ Christians, and the Twelve of the Jewish Christians. The 
Lucan story of the Seventy? is, on this theory, perhaps another form of 
this tradition, intended to give the Hellenistic leaders the same sanction 
of appointment by Jesus as was enjoyed by the Twelve. This theory 
which, for lack of evidence, can neither be confirmed nor confuted, suggests 
two opposite considerations : 

(a) There is nothing improbable in the theory that Luke exaggerated 
the degree to which all Christian missionaries were subject to the Twelve. 
This exaggeration can be seen in his treatment of Paul, for, though the 
details may be uncertain, it is hard to doubt that the picture in Acts 
represents him as more complacent towards the authority of the apostles 
than is consistent with the epistles. Moreover in the Hpistola A postolorum 
we can see the growth of this desire to paint in vivid colours the import- 
ance of the Twelve. A curve of increasing emphasis can be traced from 
the Pauline Epistles, the earliest documents, where it is at the lowest 
point, through the position of Acts, to that of the Epistola, where it 
reaches its maximum. 

(6) On the other hand there is historically nothing in favour of the 
view that the Twelve represent the Hebrews. They may represent a 
mission to the Jews of the Diaspora; but so far as the facts go—and it 
is not far—everything indicates that the Twelve, the Seven, Barnabas 
and Paul, were all equally missionaries to the world outside Judaea. 
None of them was the leader of the ‘Hebrews in Jerusalem.” That 
was the position of James. Parity of reasoning suggests that just as Luke 
and later writers exalt the Twelve, and bring Paul into subjection to 
them, they may have minimized the importance of James. The ex- 
ception to this rule, representing indeed the opposite tendency to exalt 
James, is found in the Clementine Homilies and Recognitions. 

-1 Luke x. 1. Perhaps ‘Seventy-two’ is the correct number. 



Further than this—and it is perhaps already too far—it seems 
impossible to analyse and undesirable to speculate as to the organization 
of charity in the Apostolic church in Jerusalem and the appointment of 
the Seven. The way in which the tradition of the later church connected 
the Diaconate with the Seven is outside the purpose of this note. 

Note XIII. Smon Magus 

By Rosert P. Casry 

In Christian tradition Simon Magus has enjoyed the reputation of being 
the first heretic, and historians must regard him as at least the first well- 
known and widely successful teacher of an exotic form of Christian thought. 
Accounts of his life and teachings are found in the canonical Acts of the 
Apostles, in most of the heresiologists, and in a long series of apocryphal 
acts and romances beginning with the Acts of Paul and extending through 
the Middle Ages. 

Of his early career we have only the account in Acts viii. 9 ff.? that he simon in 
was a magician in Samaria, where his sensational feats attracted many “°* 
followers who acknowledged him to be ‘ the power of God which is called 
great,’ 7) Svvapis Tov Geot 7) kaAovpéevyn peyddryn. The preaching of Philip 
in these regions drew away many of his adherents, and he ultimately followed 
them and was baptized. Later, when Peter came up from Jerusalem, 
introducing the gift of the Spirit by the laying on of hands,? Simon’s pro- 
fessional instinct appears to have been reawakened. The remarkable 
cures and exorcisms of Philip and the gift of the Spirit by Peter’s laying on 
of hands must have appeared to him as a new magic art, and he suggested 
that he might pay to acquire it. The offer was rejected by Peter with a 

1 Acts viii. 9 ff.; Justin, Apol.i. 26, 56; Dial. c. Tryph. 120; Irenaeus, Adv. 
haer. i. 16 (H.), i. 20 (G.); Tertullian, De anima, 34, Adv. omn. haer. 1; Clemens 
Alex. Strom. ii. 52. 2, vii. 107. 1 (Stahlin iii. p. 75, Sylburg p. 325); Hippolytus, 
Ref. vi. 7. 20, x. 12; Philastrius, Div. haer. liber, 29; Epiphanius, Panarion, 
haer. 21; Theodoret, Haer. fabl. i. 1; Ps.-Augustine, De haeresibus, 1; Cyril of 
Jerusalem, Catechesis, vi. 13 (P.G. xxxiii. 561); Acta Pauli 7 (Schmidt, pp. 
73-75) ; Acta Petri cum Simone, 4 ff. (and allied documents, cf. M. R. James, T'he 
Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford, 1924, pp. 471-472); Epistola Apostolorum, 1 
(Schmidt, pp. 25, 33); Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, passim; Apost. 
Const. vi. 8-9. On Oriental sources cf. F. Haase, Altchristliche Kirchengeschichte 
nach orientalischen Quellen, Leipzig, 1925, pp. 322-327 ; Apostel und Evangelisten 
in den orientalischen Uberlieferungen, Minster, 1922, passim. After a varied 
career in medieval romantic literature Simon emerges in the figure of Goethe’s 

2 On the possible identity of Simon Magus with another magician of the’ 
same name mentioned by Josephus, Antig. xx. 7. 2, cf. H. Waitz, ‘Simon Magus 
in der altchristlichen Literatur,’ Zeitschrift fiir neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 
v. (1904) pp. 127 ff. 

3 Vol. I. pp. 337 ff. 

Simon the 


sharp rebuke, and Simon, apparently taking his rebuff in good part, begged 
Peter to pray that he might not be punished for his presumption. Of his 
later history we have no details, but it is evident from the existence and 
character of the Simonian sect known in the second century that he later 
set up a religion of his own, in which he borrowed some elements from 

The supposition that Simon was a member of the Samaritan sect has 
no support in Acts and has been largely read into the later evidence. 
Justin, whose home was in Neapolis * and whose testimony is therefore of 
great value, calls Simon a 2apapeds, but uses the word in a strictly geo- 
graphical sense to signify the inhabitants of the district of Samaria.* The 
account of Simon’s early history in the Clementines clearly does not imply 
it.4 Simon operated either in Sebaste, the capital of Samaria, a Hellenistic 
town of mixed culture which was never a centre of the Samaritan religion, 
or an unnamed city in the province.’ Nothing in the Simonians’ theology 
suggests a connexion with the worship at Gerizim, while their secret cultus 
before pagan statues,® their depreciation of the Law, and their antinomian 
ethics all point in an opposite direction. 

1 Vol. II. p. 58. 

2 Apol.i. 1. Neapolis is the ancient Shechem, the modern Nablus, which 
has always been the home of the Samaritan sect. 

3 kal oxeddv mavres pev Dapapels, dAlyor 5é kal év dAors COverw, ws Tov mpSrov 
Oedv éxeivoy duodoyobvres, éxeivov Kal mpoocxuvotct, Apol. i. 26; Linwwra pev Kal 
Mévavipov dd Lapapelas, idem 56; ovde yap ard rod yévous Tod éuod, Aéyw dé 
Tav Lapapéwy, rivds PpovTlda movodmevos, eyypdg~ws Kalcapt mpocouid@y, elaov 
wravacbar aitovs medouévours TH ev TE yéver adrdv pdyyw Tiwi, dv Oedv brepdvw 
mdons apxfs kal é£ovelas kal Suvduews elvac Aéyovot, Dial. cum Tryph. 120, cf. 
Apol. ii. 15. It is clear that in these passages the Zayapeis are, like Justin, 
inhabitants of the district of Samaria and not Samaritans in a sectarian sense 
as in A pol. i. 53. 

4 Hom. ii. 19 ff., Rec. ii. 7 ff., where he is described as Dauapeds 7d ZOvos, gente 
Samareus, with a pagan education, obros év’ANeEavdpela 7H mpds AlyuTrov yeyorws, 
A\Anvicy wadela wavy é~Eaoxhoas éavrév, cal paryela word duvnbels, ante magus, 
Graecis tamen literis liberalibus adprime eruditus. 

5 See note on Acts viii. 5. 

® At the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, the temple on Gerizim, like that at 
Jerusalem, was desecrated by association with the worship of Zeus (2 Macc. 
vi. 1, cf. the spurious correspondence in Josephus, Antig. xii. 257 ff. ; Niese iii. 
pp. 116-117), but a real syncretism appears to have been effected as little in one 
place as the other (cf. M. Gaster, The Samaritans : their History, Doctrines, and 
Literature, Schweich Lectures (1923), London (1925), pp. 35, 40 ff.). The state- 
ment of the philosopher Marinus quoted by Photius, Bibl. 345 b 18 (P.G. 103, 
1284)—8re 6 diddoxos Ipdxdov, pyclv, 6 Mapivos, yévos Hv ard ris ev Ilakacorivy 
Néas médews, mpds sper katwKiouévns TO ’Apyapl{w Kadouuévy. elra Bacgdynudy 6 
dvoceBhs, pnow 6 cuvyypadeds, ev @ Avds blorov ayusrarov lepdv, @ Kabcépwro 
"ABpapmos 6 rOv mda ‘EBpalwy mpbyovos, ws airds &heyev 6 Mapivos. Lamapelrys 
obv To am’ dpxiis 6 Mapivos yeyovws, dmwerdiaro pev mpds Thy éxelvwy Stay, dre els 
Katvoroplay dad ris ’ABpduov Opnoxelas dmroppvetoav, Ta 5é ‘EAAjvwr jydmrnoev— 
is probably no more than the affectation of a recent convert to Hellenism in 


The title by which Simon was known in Samaria is a curious one, and The ‘Great 
Acts gives no clue to its original meaning. Various possibilities of con- °°" 
fusion in the text have been suggested. Klostermann? supposed that 
peyaAn was a transliteration of xbiv or +b3n, participial forms of the verb 
‘to lay open’ or ‘ reveal,’ and that Simon was originally known as ‘ the 
Power of God which is called the Revealer,’ but it does not seem likely that 
the author of Acts would have left so misleading a transliteration unex- 
plained. Torrey,? on the assumption that Acts viii. is based on an Aramaic 
source, translates viii. 10 b into Aramaic 2 xnpno ~ xabx 4 abn po and 
maintains that the adjective 2, ‘ great,’ which may be taken grammatically 
either with xnbx, ‘God,’ or =n, ‘ power,’ was intended by the Aramaic 
author to go with the former but was misunderstood by his translator to 
modify »b. The correct rendering, on this hypothesis, would have been 
» Stvapus ToD Peod Tov KaAovpévov peydAov. It is always assumed that 
the god whose ‘ power’ * Simon was held to be was Jehovah, but it is 
evident both from later Simonian theology and from the fact that Simon 

calling his native deity by a Greek name. Cumont’s statement (‘ Hypsistos,’ 
Pauly-Wissowa’s Realencyklopddie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft), “ In 
Samaria soll ein Tempel zu Zeus H. (Aids bYiorou dyudrarov iepdv) von Abraham 
gegriindet worden sein (Marin. Vit. Isid. bei Phot. Bibl. 345 b 18. Die Uber- 
lieferung geht auf Alexander Polyhistor zuriick, vgl. Euseb. Praep. Ev. ix. 17.4; 
Movers Phénizier, i. 557; Dussaud, Notes de myth. syrienne, 5)” goes too far, for 
Alexander Polyhistor, who at this point is apparently drawing on an anonymous 
Samaritan historian (cf. Freudenthal, Hellenistische Studien i.-ii., Breslau, 1875, 
pp. 82 ff.) says: mpecBéwv 5é rapayevouévwv mpds atrov drws xphyata aBow 
dmodurpwon Tara, wh mpoedhécOa Tois Suaruvxovow éweuBaiverv, adda Tas Tpopas 
AaBorvra Trav veavicxwy arododvar Ta aixuddwra, EevicOival re abrdv bd brews 
iepdv ’Apyaprfiv, 8 elvar weepunvevduevor dpos bWlorov, rapa dé ro) Medxuoedéx lepéws 
bvros TOD Oeot Kal BacidevovTos AaBeiv SGpa. Eusebius, Praep. Ev. ix. 17, p. 419 a. 
8 elvar webepunvevopuevov Spos WWicrou is obviously wrong and may be a gloss (cf., 
however, Freudenthal, op. cit. p. 89 n.), but there can be no doubt that tyoros 
is merely a conventional description of Jehovah. Cf. p. 446. 

1 A. Klostermann, Probleme im Aposteltexte, Gotha, 1883, p. 18. 

2 <The Composition and Date of Acts’ (Harvard Theological Studies, i., 
Cambridge, 1916), pp. 18-20. Cf. Vol. II. pp. 147-148. 

3 It is characteristic of the two religions that Christianity claimed Jesus to 
be the Adyos rod Geod and Simonianism conceived Simon as the dvvayis tod 
Geod. On the theological conception of dvvauis in and about this period cf. 
the charm published from an Egyptian papyrus of the fourth century by 
Wessely, Griechische Zauberpapyrus von Paris und London (Denkschrift der 
Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Wien, Phil.-hist. Classe, 36, 1888), pp. 76-77, . 
Il. 1275 ff.: dpxrixh ravra rowodca * \byos* érikadodual oe Ti peylorny Siva Thy 
év T@ obpavg (4dAou Thy év TH dpxrw) bd Kkuplov Oeod reraypevnv éml TO oTpépey 
Kparaig xetpe Tov iepdv wédov, vixapoTAHE érdxovody por, “He Ppn, Tov lepdv, 6 7a 
dra cuvéxwv cal {woryovdv Tov cUuravra kécpov; A. Deissmann, Bible Studies, 2nd 
edition, London, 1903, p. 336; and the valuable collection of material by 
A. D. Nock, ‘ Studies in the Graeco-Roman Beliefs of the Empire,’ Journal of 
Hellenic Studies, xly, (1925) pp. 84 ff. 


The alleged 
statue of 


was worshipped before statues of Zeus that the Simonian conception of 
God was a mixture of Zeus and Jehovah. 

The first to add new material to the story in Acts is Justin Martyr 
(1 Apol. 26, 56, Dial. cum Tryphone 120), who describes Simon as a magician, 
a native of Gitta in Samaria, who came to Rome in the reign of Claudius. 
He was accompanied by a Phoenician woman named Helen, who had 
abandoned the career of a professional prostitute to live with him, and his 
followers, who comprised most of his fellow-countrymen and some others, 
worshipped him as the supreme God and regarded Helen as the ‘ primary 
notion’ emanating from him. At Rome a statue was erected in his honour 
on the Tiber between two bridges and bore the inscription, Smmont DEO 
Sanoto. Justin adds that another Samarian magician, Menander of 
Capparetia, became Simon’s disciple and by his magic deceived many 
at Antioch, persuading them that by following him they would gain 

Justin’s account is brief but clear. He does not refer to the story in 
Acts, and all his information appears to have been derived from other 
sources. The birthplace of Simon, the account of Helen and the place 
she occupied in his theology, his presence in Rome under Claudius, his 
disciple Menander: all this is fresh material and is not even suggested by 
Acts. Justin himself was a native of Neapolis and had visited Rome. 

His account of the statue is probably inexact, for a monument with the 
inscription Srmonz Sanco Dzo Fivio sacrum SEx(tTvus) Pompzrtus Sp(uRI) 
TALIS DONUM DEDIT? was unearthed in the sixteenth century. This is 
generally held to be that to which Justin referred. Semo was an ancient 
Italian deity often identified with Jupiter and Zebs épxsos or riotuos.® 
Besnier and others assert that the connexion with Simon is simply a mis- 
understanding of Justin’s. That the statue had originally no connexion 
with Simon is evident, but it is not impossible that Simonians at Rome used 
it for their own worship. The cultus of Simon was regularly performed 
before statues of Zeus, and the similarity of the names Semoni and Simoni 
may have proved an added attraction to such persistent allegorizers. The 
fact that the monument was used by others for a different worship need 
also have been no hindrance in so cosmopolitan an age. Examples of 
temples and images used by different sects for their own religion are attested 
in the De dea Syra * and were probably not uncommon. 

Furthermore a simple misunderstanding of the inscription does not 

1 For similar combinations cf. E. Schiirer, ‘Die Juden im bosporanischen 
Reiche und die Genossenschaft der ceBdueror Oedv tyroror,’ SBA., 1897, i. pp. 
200 ff. ; F. Cumont, ‘ Hypsistos,’ in Pauly-Wissowa. See also pp. 88 ff. ‘ 

2 C.I.L. vi. 567, now at the Vatican. Cf. M. Besnier, ‘ L’ile tibérine dans 
Vantiquité ’ (Bibliothéque des Ecoles Frangaises d’ Athénes et de Rome, 87), Paris, 
1902, p. 273. 

3 G. Wissowa, Religion und Kultus der Romer, 2. Aufl., Miinchen, 1912, pp. 
130 ff. ; Besnier, op. cit. pp. 286 ff. Besnier gives reasons why the identification 
of Semo and Jupiter is particularly likely at this sanctuary. 

* Ps.-Lucian, De dea Syra, 11 ff. 

sii SIMON MAGUS 155 

dispose of the statement that Simon was in Rome under Claudius. This 
information may be wrong ; but it should not be discounted merely because 
it is associated with the reference to the statue. It is inherently no more 
improbable that Simon made a journey to Rome than that Justin or Peter 
did. It seems extremely unlikely, however, that Justin, who knew of 
Simon’s activities in Samaria, would have invented his presence in Rome 
and confirmed it with an imaginary date simply from having misread 
Semoni Sanco Deo. The existence of Simonians in Rome at the time of 
Hippolytus is tolerably certain, and it is not unlikely that they were the 
descendants of Simon’s personal followers there. 

The historic character of Helen has also been questioned. Waitz Helen as 
supposed her to be the Phoenician moon-goddess with whose worship onfaae: 
Simonianism became entangled at the close of the first century. “‘ Werden 
wir namlich mit der Helenageschichte von Samarien auf einmal nach Tyrus 
versetzt, so kénnen wir uns diese Entwickelung nicht anders vorstellen, als 
dass sich die samaritanische Verehrung Simons als des obersten Gottes mit 
der phénizischen, speziell tyrischen Verehrung des Sonnengottes (Sem, 
Schemesch, Herakles, Melkart, Baal) und der Mondgéttin (Helena, Selene, 
Luna, Astarte) verbunden hat.”? Of such a development of Simonianism, 
however, Justin is entirely ignorant, and none of the fragments or accounts 
of Simonian sources suggest it. Only the Clementines, in a curious passage 
on the origins of a sect supposed to have been founded by Ji ohn the Baptist, 
could be offered as evidence in this. connexion : ‘Twdvyns: TUS eyévero 7) 1€po- 
Barrurrys, 8 os Kat Tov Kupiov pov ‘Inoov KATO TOV THS ov(vyias Adyov 
eyevero mpdodos. Kab domep T) Kupi yeyovacty b0dexa drdarohot, 
TOV TOU HAiov Siidexa pnvav pépovtes Tdv dpiOpov, & aoatros Kal avr@ 
eLapxor avdpes yeysvacev TpidKovra, TOV pavaiov THS weAjvas dar om An 
potyres Adyov. év d apps pio. Tis Hv ye", Aeyopevn “EXevn, tva pn de 
/ TOUTO dvoLtKOVOUNTOV 7. Tuo yap dvdpos otoa yuvi, dred TOV THIS Tpta- 
KovTddos TeHeikev dprOpov, Gorep Kat THs veins, Hs 7 7 Topeia TOU pnVvos 
od TéActov Tovetras TOV Spopov. TObTwV be TOV TpidKovTa, TO ‘lwdvvy 
™poros Kat Soxtpurraros Hv 0 oO Zipov: os kat TOU pe dp£ae avrov pera 
THY teAeuTHV TOU ‘Twdvvov, aitiav érxev tattnv, Hom. ii. 23; cf. Rec. 
ii. 8. This account is suspicious from every point of view; but the 
astrological theory contained in it is evidently its own and not a Simonian 
feature. The Simonians themselves identified Helen with Athena,’ and for 
an obvious reason. Just as the Homeric Helen assisted in the explanation 
of this Phoenician’s too romantic career, so the story of Athena’s birth 
from the head of Zeus could be used as an allegory for the emergence of. 
Helen as the primeval notion from the divine mind of Simon.‘ 

1 Ref. vi. 19. 7. The passage appears to indicate that Hippolytus was 
acquainted with Simonians. It is no more than a natural assumption that they 
were at Rome. 

2 Waitz, op. cit. p. 134. 

3 Tren. i. 16. 3 (H.); Hippolytus, Ref. vi. 20; Epiphanius, Haer. 21. 4. 

* Tren. i. 16. 2 (H.) “hic Helenam quandam, quam ipse a Tyro civitate 
Phoenices quaestuariam cum redemisset, secum circumducebat dicens hanc esse 
primam mentis eius conceptionem, matrem omnium, per quam in initio 



Another piece of Simonian exegesis also militates strongly against the 
view that Helen was a moon-goddess, and that is in the parable of the lost 
sheep.t The explanation given in the sources is that Simon came to earth 
to rescue from the power of the angels his "Evvova, incarnate in Helen, 
just as the Good Shepherd sought the lost sheep. Once having found her 
it is natural that he should not wish to lose her, and hence their companion- 
ship was explained. This ingenious, if not entirely ingenuous, explanation 
of an awkward situation is surely too good not to have been invented @ 
propos, and it is, besides, entirely consistent with the rest of Simonian 
theology. There is, however, no obvious connexion between it and 
mythology of the sun and moon. There seems to be no reason, therefore, 
for rejecting the view of all the ancient writers that Helen was a historical 
character. It may well be that Simon deceived himself as well as others 
about the supernatural importance of his mistress, but apart from their 
theology, which was, if nothing else, their stock-in-trade, a liaison between 
a magician of Samaria and a Tyrian prostitute is neither improbable nor 

Irenaeus (i. 16 H.) relates that Simon held the supreme God to be an 
exalted Power (sublimissimam virtutem) which manifested itself in three 
individuals, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.?- From this Power the 
Father produced a Notion (ennoia) who following her Father’s will descended 
to a lower sphere and created angels and powers (angelos et potestates). 
These subordinate beings fashioned the visible world, but were so desirous 
that they should not be thought the children of another that they kept 
the ‘ Notion’ a prisoner, preventing her from returning to the Father, of 
whose existence they were unaware, and subjecting her to all manner of 
humiliations, for while under their control she was obliged to assume one 
human body after another. Thus she appeared in history as Helen of Troy, 
and later as that Helen of Phoenician Tyre who was Simon’s companion.® 

mente concepit angelos facere et archangelos. Hanc enim Ennoian exsilientem 
ex eo, cognoscentem quae vult pater eius, degredi ad inferiora, et generare angelos 
et potestates, a quibus et mundum hunc factum dixit.” 

1 Tren. i. 16. 2 (H.) “et hanc esse perditam ovem”; cf. Hippolytus, Ref. vi. 
19.4; Epiphanius, Haer. 21.3. 5 6: rddw reyev, ws mpoetrov, vrodalywy éxelyny 
Thy per adbrod yuvaixa riv dxd Tépov AnPOeioav abr@ Tiv oudvupov ris madkadas 
‘Erévyns, Ta wdvra tavrny Kadav xal”Evvowy Kal AOnvay xal ‘EXévyy xal ra Gdda 
“kal dia tratrynv,” pyol, “xaraBéBnxa: rodro ydp éott 7d yeypampévov év TH 
evayyeXlw 7d mpdBarov 7d memdavypuevor.” 

2 Tren. i. 16. 1 (H.) “ hic igitur a multis quasi Deus glorificatus est, et docuit 
semetipsum esse qui inter Iudaeos quidem quasi Filius apparuerit, in Samaria 
autem quasi Pater descenderit, in reliquis vero gentibus quasi Spiritus sanctus 
adventaverit ’’; Ps.-Augustine, De haeresibus, 1, and Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. vi. 
13, P.G. xxxv. 561, must be garbled versions of this passage. 

3 Tren. i. 16. 2 (H.) “‘ posteaquam autem generavit eos, haec detenta est ab 
ipsis propter invidiam, quoniam nollent progenies alterius cuiusdam putari 
esse ; ipsum enim se in totum ignoratum ab ipsis: Ennoian autem eius detentam 
ab iis, quae ab ea emissae essent potestates, et angeli; et omnem contumeliam 
ab iis passam uti non occurreret sursum ad suum patrem, usque adeo ut et in 


She is referred to in the New Testament as the lost sheep of the parable. 
At length the supreme God took pity on her and the world in which she was 
imprisoned and descended to rescue her, bringing salvation to mankind 
and relief to a world suffering from the mismanagement of the angels whose 
counsels were divided by jealous rivalries. Taking a form like those of 
the angels and ‘ powers,’ he appeared in Judaea, seeming to be a man and 
apparently enduring pain, though in fact he was not human or passible. 
Those whom he has saved and who place their hope in Simon and Helen 
are secured once for all by his favour and need acquire no further merit 
from good works. They are not bound by the precepts of the Law, which 
was delivered by the angels who made the world, but may act according 
to their own desires, since conduct is not absolutely but only relatively 
good.’ Irenaeus concludes his account by saying that Simon’s followers 
lived licentiously, practised magic, and worshipped Simon and Helen before 
statues of Zeus and Athena. 

Closely connected with this description is the Simonian source Epiphanius. 
employed by Epiphanius, Haer. 21.2 ff. In the passages quoted Simon 
speaks in the first person, and it is likely that the work was a dogmatic 
apocalypse in which developed sectarian doctrine is put into the mouth 
of the founder as was done in Christianity in the Fourth Gospel. The 
structure of the myth is the same as in Irenaeus, but some details are 
clarified and others added. Simon’s descent to rescue Helen is thus de- 
scribed : ev éxdory dé ovpave perenoppovpny, gnoiv, kara THY poppy 
TOV év éxdory ovpary, iva AdBw TOS dyyehuxds pov Suvdpers Kat KarehOw 
ért THY "Evvocay, arHs éoriv avTn 7 Kat Tpobvixos kat mvevpo. dy vov 
kadovpévn, S¢ Hs tos dyyéAous extica, of S¢ adyyedou Tov Kdcpov 
extivav Kat Tovs dvOpwrovs. This passage explains the obscure sentence 

corpore humano includeretur, et per saecula veluti de vase in vas transmigraret 
in altera muliebria corpora. Fuisse autem eam et in illa Helena, propter quam 
Troianum contractum est bellum; quapropter et Stesichorum per carmina 
maledicentem eam, orbatum oculis: post deinde poenitentem et scribentem 
eas, quae vocantur palinodias, in quibus hymnizavit eam, rursus vidisse. 
Transmigrantem autem eam de corpore in corpus, ex eo et semper contumeliam 
sustinentem, in novissimis etiam in fornice prostitisse.” 

1 “Quapropter et ipsum venisse, uti eam assumeret primam et liberaret 
eam a vinculis, hominibus autem salutem praestaret per suam agnitionem; cum’ 
enim male moderarentur angeli mundum, quoniam unusquisque eorum con- 
cupisceret principatum, ad emendationem venisse rerum, et descendisse eum 
transfiguratum, et assimilatum virtutibus et potestatibus et angelis, ut et in 
hominibus homo appareret ipse, cum non esset homo; et passum autem in 
Iudaea putatum, cum non esset passus; prophetas autem a mundi fabricatoribus 
angelis inspiratos dixisse prophetias: quapropter nec ulterius curarent eos hi 
qui in eum et in Helenam eius spem habeant, et ut liberos agere quae velint : 
secundum enim ipsius gratiam salvari homines, sed non secundum operas 
iustas, nec enim esse naturaliter operationes iustas, sed ex accidenti quemad- 
modum posuerunt qui mundum fecerunt angeli, per huiusmodi praecepta in ser- 
vitutem deducentes homines, quapropter et solvi mundum, et liberarieos qui sunt 
eius ab imperio eorum qui mundum fecerunt, repromisit.” Iren. i. 16. 3 (H.). 


in Irenaeus (i. 16.1 H.): “hic igitur a multis quasi Deus glorificatus est, 
et docuit semetipsum esse qui inter Iudaeos quidem quasi Filius apparuerit, 
in Samaria autem quasi Pater descenderit, in reliquis gentibus quasi Sanctus 
Spiritus adventaverit.”” The Simonian trinity evidently consisted of the 
Father = Simon, the Son = Jesus, the Holy Spirit = Helen, but in a sense 
Simon was all three. His appearance in Samaria was that of the Father — 
in person (‘“‘in Samaria autem quasi Pater descenderit”’), but he was also 
identical with the Godhead manifested in, Jesus (‘‘inter Iudaeos quidem 
quasi Filius apparuerit*’), and his was the mind from which the Notion 
Helen emanated. 

The doctrine of the angels who created this world is also explained more 
fully than in Irenaeus. They all bear outlandish names and have their 
own celestial domain, and to be saved it is necessary to know their names 
and to sacrifice to the Father of all through them. This last feature is very 
peculiar in view of the hostility implicit in the whole system between the 
régime of the angelic beings and that of the supreme god. This age is one 
of evil like its creators, and the flesh of man which they fashioned is con- 
temptible, only his soul being capable of salvation through the gnosis im- 
parted by Simon, the supreme god. The Old Testament is not the work 
of the good god but is a composite production inspired in its several parts 
by different demons, all of them emanating from the ‘left power’ who 
stands outside the pleroma. This doctrine no less than the account of 
Simon’s descent through the spheres is obviously connected with Valentinian 

Epiphanius gives more fully than Irenaeus examples of Simonian 
exegesis, both of Homer and of the New Testament. The transmigrations 
of Helen and her redemption by Simon are described in a quotation from 
his source, where Simon declares “ jv dé atrn tore 7 eri Tots “EAAnoi Te 
kat Tpwot kat dvwtdatw mpiv 7 Tov Kéopov yever Oat kal pera TV KOT pLOV 
dua, TOV dopatwv Svvdpewv Ta iodtura Teroinkvia. attyn d€ erry 1) VvoV 
ovv éuoi Kal dud Tabrny xarehjdv0a. Kat airn de mpooedoxa. THY €p7)V 
mapovoiay: airy yap éotw 1) "Evvova, » Tapa ‘Opnjpy “EXevn KaAoupevn. 
Kat Tovrou évenev dvayKdlerar adtiv Suaypacerv “Opnpos. ext mopyou 
éornkevar Kai dua Aapmrddos tropaivev Tois "EAAnot THY Kato. Tov 
Ppvyayv exiBovdijv. exapaxri pre be dua Tis Aaparndéovos, as env, THV 
TOD avwOev purds évdeuk wv.” 8d Kal Tdv rapa TO ‘Oprpy Sodtpevov trmov 
PepnXavnpEvor, ov vopifovo "EAAnves erirndes yeyeriio Bau, édeye waduy 
6 ons btu ayvow eore TOV EOvaV" Kal “ ds of Ppvbyes éAKovres avrov 
dyvoig Tov iStov dAeOpov € emer TdoavTo, oUTw [yep] Kat Ta €Ovn TovTértiv 
ot dv@pwrot of ExTds THs EuHS yvdcews, Sia THS dyvoias EAxovow EavTois 
THv ardAeav ” (Haer. 21. 3). 

The identification of Helen with Athena and with the ‘lost sheep’ also 
appears in Epiphanius: dAAd Kai “A@nvav rdédw tiv adriy éAeye THV 
rap avt@ "Evvowav kaAovpevny, xpopevos dn0ev 6 rAdvos Tals Tov dyiov 
drortoAov IlatAov gwvais, petarodv te THV dAjnOeav cis TS avTOD 
Weddos, Td “evdtcarbe Tov Odpaka Tis ticTews Kal Tiv Tepikedadreiav 
Tov owrnpiov Kat Kvynpidas Kal paxaipav Kal Oupedy,” ravTa Tadra, 
éxt tas TOD Piliotiwvos pipodroyias 6 araredy Ta bxd TOD drooTdéAoV 


eipynpéva Sid. orepedy Aoyiopdv Kal rior ayvis dvactpodis Kai Sivapev 
Geiov Adyou Kai érovpaviov eis xAet’nv Aourdv Kal oddev Erepov peTa- 
otpepov. “ti yap,” pyoi, “radra mavra eis "BiGyves TUTOUS PYTTHPLWdOs 
eo xnpadrege” a SAKD Kat dud tadrnv,” pyoi, ¢ ‘xara BEBnka. TOUTO yap 
éote Td yeypappevov ev TH ebaryyedi 7) mpoPBatov 76 merAavynpéevov” 
(Haer. 21. 3, 4-5). 

Hippolytus’s account of the Simonians repeats in part details familiar The neyéAy 
from Irenaeus, but adds long extracts from a Simonian source entitled “**"* 
“H MeydAn’Arédacis. This document, which has marked affinities with 
Valentinianism, teaches that the first principle of the universe is fire, which 
is sometimes called the great or infinite power.? It has a double aspect, 
one hidden, the other visible, and of these the latter represents the pheno- 
menal world, the former its underlying reason. The universe came into 
being from fire, and the whole cosmic history is conditioned by the activity 
of fire. The first step in the process was the emergence from the fire of 
six ‘roots’ and is thus described: yéyovev obv 6 Kéapos 6 yevvntds amd 
TOU dyevvyjTrov Tupos. Tp§aro b¢, ones, yevér Oa Tovrov Tov Tpdror, e 
pitas Tas mpiras Tijs apx7s Tis yevvqrews AaBav 6 yevynrds amd THS 
apxis Tov Tupos exeivov, yeyovevat be TOS pitas gyot Kara, oufvyias dard 
TOU Tupés, dorivas pitas kahei, vouv kal érivo.ay, poviy Kat dvopa, 
Aoywrpdv Kai évOdpnow: civas Se év rais €€ pitas ravras Tacav Gpov 
THhv amrépavrov Sivapy Suvdpe, ovK evepyeig. (Ref. 6. 12. 1-2). The six 
roots are equated with parts of the universe thus: vols Kal érivow = 
ovpavds Kal yn, pwvr Kal dvoua=Aos Kal ceAjvyn, Aoywpds Kat 
evOvbunois = anp kat bdwp, but the Seventh Power is immanent in them all. 
The visible world is the offspring of vovs and ézivova, and its only value 
lies in the realization of the rational element in it.4 Man is a dichotomy, 

1 Mwoéws yap \éyorros, “871 0 Oeds Tip préyov éorl kal karavaNloxov ” SeEdpmevos 
7d AexOev bd Mwcéws odx bpOds, wip elvar rdv Sdwv Aéyer Thy apxnv... Ref. 
vi. 9. 3. 

2 dmrépaytor 6é elvar Sivamw 6 Tiuww mpooaryopever Tov Sw Thy apxhy 
Ref. vi. 9.4. It is also called pifa rév Siwr, Ref. vi. 9. 4-5. 

3 gore 5¢ ) dwéparros Sivams, 7d Wop, Kara Tov Xhuwva ovdev amdodv, xaddmrep 
oi ToNol amrAG révovres elvar TA TéEcoapa crorxeia Kal 7d Top amdody elvar vevout- 
Kao, G\Ad yap elvac [Thy] Tod wupds Sirdqv Twa Thy piow, Kal Ths durdijs TavTyS 
Karel 7d pév Te Kpu@rév, TO 5€ Te Havepdy* KexpUpbar dé ra KpuTTa ev Tols Pavepots 
Tod mupés, kal Ta pavepa Tod rupds brd T&v KpyTTa&v yeyovéva. Ref. vi. 9. 5-6. 

* ray 6é & Suvduewy robTwr Kal THs EBSduns THs wera TGv & Karel Thy rpwrny 
ougvylay vodv cal élvoay, ovpaydy Kal viv Kal Tov peév Apoeva dvwhev ériBrérew 
kal mpovoeiy ris cuti-you, Thy 5é viv brobéxec Oat Kdtw Tods dd TOD odpavod voepods 
kaTagepouévous TH ij cuyyevets aprovs. did ToOTo, pnolv, dmwoBémwv Todddxts 6 
Abyos mpds Ta éx vods kal éxwwolas yeyevynuéva, Touréctiv €& odpavod Kal ~yijs Néyer* 
“dxove, odpavé, kal evwrifou, yi bre KUpios éAdAnoev* vlods éyévynca kal tbYwoa, 
avrot dé ue HOErnoav.” 6 dé Aéywr Tadra, Hyolv, h EBddun Sivapls eorw <> Ears, 
otds, ornobpuevos* airds & alrios ToUTwy TGV KadGy, Gv éwyvece Mwotjs kal elie 
Kana Mav. 7 52 mwvh cal 7d Svoua HrLos Kal cedrjvy, 6 5é Aoytopds Kal 7 EvOtunors 
dip Kal bdwp. év dé rovros dmacw éupéucxra Kai Kéxparat, ws pny,  meyadn 
dbvams % dwréparros, 6 cords. Ref. vi. 13. 

se 89 

and Stoic 


created kat ¢ixdéva kal a0’ duoiwow Tod Oot, and his goal is perfectly 
to image the divine principle in his nature. The universe is the rationally 
developed character of men.? The process of salvation, however, has more 
than a human significance, for in realizing his own best nature man releases 
the Seventh Power from the prison of potentiality, so that in becoming 
actual it is united with the ultimate divine principle of the universe from 
which it was originally derived.* 

This outline of the ideas underlying the system of the Apophasis is 
sufficient to show its affinity with Stoic ontology and cosmology. The 
dynamic materialism, the doctrine of elements which maintains that fire, 
though not itself a simple substance, was the primary element to which all 
others could be reduced,‘ the dissolution of the world in fire, the identifica- 
tion of rvetya. and zip,5 the doctrine of immanence, and the idea that man 
achieves perfection in the exemplification of the divine latent in him—all 
these are unmistakable evidences of Stoic influence and show that the 
author of the Apophasis was profoundly steeped in Stoic philosophy. But 
this was only one aspect of his thought. He was more a theologian 
than a philosopher, and much of his interest lay in the invention of 
elaborate metaphors and the adaptation of a variety of mythology 
and tradition to his philosophic ideas. His method is the same as 
that of Philo and Cornutus, but his ingenuity if anything more perverse 
than theirs. 

The affinities between the Apophasis and the Simonianism described 

1 “&rhace,” pyaty, “6 Beds Tov dvOpwrov xobv dd THs ys” AaBwv’ erdace dé 
ovx ardodv, ddAG Surdody “ Kar’ elkdva Kal Kad’ opuolwow.” eixdv 5 éort Td Tred UA 
Td émipepbuevov érdvw rod viaros (Gen. i. 2, cf. Ref. vi. 14. 4). 8 dav wh 
éfecxovicOn, pera Tod Kédcpou Grodetra, Suvduer petvay pdvov Kal ph évepyela 
yevopnevov—rodrd éort, pyol, 7d elpnucvor' “iva ph oly TE Kbcmm KaTaxprOGmev” 
(1 Cor. xi. 32). Ref. vi. 14. 5-6. 

2 xadddrov dé €orw elwety, ravrwy Tov byTwv alcOnTr&v Te Kal vonrwv, Gv éxeivos 
Kpuglwv kat pavep&v mpocaryopever, ott Onoavpds 7d mip 7d brepovpdnov, olovel 
Sévdpov péya ws <Td> dt dvelpov Brerbuevov 7G NaBovxodovdcop, €& 0} raca 
odpt rpéperat. Kal 7d wéev havepoy elvac rod rupds voulfer 7d mpéuvov, Tovs KAdOous, 
Ta pidra, Tov ZEwOev airg mepixelwevov proby. dmravra, dyol, radra Tod weyddov 
dévdpou dvapbérra bd Tis waupdyou Tod mupds ddaviferar proyds. 6 5 Kapmés TOU 
dévdpou édy ékecxovic OH Kal tiv éavrod popphv droddBy, els aroOjKnv TlOerat, ovK 
eis to Tip. yéyove wer yap, pnolv, 6 kapwés, iva els Thy droOhKny TeOy, Td 5 &xvpor, 
iva mapadoOy Tw mupl, 8rep €or rpéuvov, ob a’rod xdpw adda TOD Kaprod yeyern- 
pévov. Ref. vi. 9. 8-10. The passage is an ingenious combination of Dan. iv. 7-9 
and Matt. iii. 12 as an allegory for the Stoic doctrine of the final conflagration. 
Cf. Ref. vi. 16. 5-6. The term xaprés in a similar connexion appears in some 
Valentinian systems. 

. § Ref. vi. 12. 2-4, 14. 6. An elaborate mixture of physiology and allegory 
explains this process further in Ref. vi. 14. 7-17. 7. 

4 gore Oe 7) drépavros Sivamis, 7d wip, Kara Tov Xuwva ovdév amrodv,... 
GAG yap elvar [rhv] roo wupds Simdiv twa Tiv piow, Kal THs Suds Tavrns 
Kane? 76 wv Te Kpurrév, 7d dé Te havepdv. Ref. vi. 9. 5. 

5 Of. Ref. vi. 14. 5-6. 


by Irenaeus are few and slight.1_ Irenaeus presents a frankly mythological The *Ané- 
scheme, operating with distinct individualities, and the doctrine of the sedi 
incarnation exemplified in Simon and Helen gave to it a picturesque realism. 

The theology of the Apophasis is fundamentally philosophic, and the col- 

lection of myths and metaphors which express it are of secondary import- 

ance, serving principally to illustrate the cosmopolitan religious taste of 

its author. Furthermore the cosmologies of the two systems are not only 
notably different but irreconcilably contradictory. In Irenaeus the world 

was created by angels, and the need for its redemption was due to their 
mismanagement while its redemption was effected by a personal saviour. 

The Old Testament was held to be inspired by the creating angels and to 

have no importance for the redeemed. In the Apophasis the Old Testa- 

ment is accepted but allegorized. The very idea of creation is inapplicable 

to a world evolved out of fire and dissolved into it again, and the angels are 
replaced by the abstract ji(a:. There is no room for a personal saviour, 

and Helen is completely eliminated. 

The figure of Simon is a favourite one in early Christian imaginative Simon in 
literature, and the encounter between Peter and Simon (Acts viii. 18-24) pout Ane 
especially supplied a dramatic theme which was developed with some skill fiction. 
and variety in the apocryphal acts and romances. The most elaborate as 
well as the most familiar of these stories is found in the Clementine literature, 

a misreading of which supplied the Tiibingen school of three generations 
ago with the principal support for their theory of early Christian history. 
In both the Recognitions and Homilies Simon and Helen are placed in a 
‘group of thirty disciples of John the Baptist.2 After the death of the 
master Dositheus attempts to assume the lead, but is overcome by Simon 
who convinces him that he is really 6 éorws.2 He adopts Helen as his 
companion, and explains that she is a fallen power for whose salvation he 
has appeared. Ina series of debates with Peter he maintains the existence 
of two gods (Hom. iii. 2, Rec. ii. 38 ff., Hom. xix. 2 ff.) and declares that- 
he is the representative of a higher divinity of whose existence Jehovah 
the Lawgiver was unaware. This higher god even Jesus announced, though 
he was a messenger of Jehovah and did not rightly understand his own 
prophetic utterances (Hom. xviii. 11). The myth of the angels is told by 
Peter to the crowd, and Simon is enraged at having his mysteries made 
public. Peter’s words are unfortunately deeply corrupted in the Greek 
text, which runs thus : mpets, | ® Lipwv, ex THs peydAns Suvdpews, Ere Te 
Kal THs Kupias Aeyopevys, ov Aéyopev dvo0 ameotd Oar dyyéhovs, TOV 
pev ert T) KTIOAL KOO Pov, TOV be ent To Bec Oat Tov VOp.ov" ovoe OTL 
€avtdv exartos €ADdv, ef ols érolnoev, ws aitos Ov avbevtns adrdv 
nyyeAev. od8€ 6 éotds, oTnodpevos, avTikeipevos (Hom. xviii. 12). 
This obviously defies all attempts to construe it, though its general 
meaning may be guessed. 
The Clementine account of Simon’s activities and teaching appears to 

1 It has, however, some resemblance to the system of Saturninus. Cf. 
Tren. i. 18 (H.), i, 22 (Gr.). 
2 Rec. ii. 7 ff., Hom. ii. 22 ff. 
§ Rec. ii. 11, Hom. ii. 24. Cf. Hippolytus, Ref. vi. 17. 1-2. 
VOL. V : M 





be a composite of materials familiar from the heresiologists with a liberal 
addition of fiction, but the obviously distinctive features caution against 
oversimplifying the problem. The figure of 6 éorws recalls the Apophasis 
megale, but the discussion of Scriptural texts, especially in proof of the 
existence of two gods,? is not found in the extracts in Hippolytus, and is not 
likely to have been invented by the author of the Clementine Grundschrift. 
It seems more probable that this author had independent access to the 
Apophasis or to some kindred document, extracts from which he adapted 
to his exposition of Simon’s teaching. 

The Simonian mysteries had a bad name among early Christian writers. 
The priests, Irenaeus says, lived licentiously and devoted themselves to 
the study and practice of magic. Hippolytus is more precise: of d¢ atOus 
pupntat rod mAdvov Kal Lipwvos payou yuvdpevor TA Spora Spdcw* 
ddoytotas packovtes Seiv piyvvcba, A€yovres, “aca yH yj, Kal od 
Siadéper rod Tis omeiper, TAHV iva oreipy.” GAAG Kal paxapifovery 
Eavrovs ert TH Eevy pikes, Tadtnv eivar A€yovtes Tiv Tedeiav aydmrnyv, Kal 
TO dyvos dyiwy [erd]AAy[A]os dyvarOjoerau od yap pi) Kpareir Oar 
abtovs ere Tivt vopifopevp kak, AeA’TpwvTar ydp.4 Of the ritual 
we know only that it was secret and that Simon and Helen were 
worshipped before statues of Zeus and Athena. In the liturgy they 
were addressed as kipie and xvpia and never by their proper names, 
so that an intruder who violated this custom could be recognized and 

The death of Simon, like that of Judas Iscariot, was variously described. 
In the Acts of Peter, Simon attempts a feat of levitation at Rome, but the 
spell is broken by Peter and the magician crashes to earth so badly damaged 
that he must be carried to the house of a colleague, Castor, at Tarracina, 

1 Schmidt’s statement is obviously an oversimplification of the problem: 
‘** Die gnostischen Lehren der Simon Magus und die Figur der Helena haben 
fiir den Verfasser der Clementinen ebensowenig Bedeutung wie fiir den Autor 
der Petrusakten. Beide schépfen ihre Nachrichten héchtestwahrscheinlich 
aus Justins Syntagma, das wieder eine Quelle fiir Irenaeus gewesen sein muss, 
denn die Anspielung an die Helena im Trojanischen Kriege findet sich wortlich 
bei Iren. Adv. haer. i. 23. 2, ein sicheres Zeichen fiir eine benutzte schriftliche 
Quelle,” Studien zu Pseudo-Clementinen (T'.U. 46. 1, Leipzig, 1929), p.51. But 
the accounts in Iren. i. 26. 2, Rec. ii. 12, Hom. ii. 25 are not in literal agreement, 
though all represent the same Simonian allegory of the Homeric figure, and it 
is obvious that the Simonian system in the Clementines is either a genuine 
one, but somewhat different in detail from those given in other sources, or a 
patchwork of the author, materials for which have been drawn from several 

2 Rec. ii. 38 ff., Hom. xvi. 5 ff. Was Simon’s claim to have been born 
of a virgin (Rec. ii. 14) an invention of the Clementine author or a Simonian 
doctrine ? 

3 j, 16. 3 (H.). 4 Ref. vi. 19. 5. 

5 Ref. vi. 20. 1-2. The appearance of tongues of fire over the baptismal 
water referred to in Ps.-Cyprian, De rebaptismate, 16, is usually ascribed to the 
Simonian rite, but this is not necessarily the meaning of the passage. 


where he dies.1_ Hippolytus relates that Simon, seeing his end was near, 
announced that if he were buried alive he would rise again on the third 
day. Hippolytus concludes: ot pév otv 75 mpootaxOev eroinoav, 6 Se 
Gmépeivev ws viv. od yap iv 6 Xpwrds.2 This account may well represent 
some Christian’s conception of poetic justice to a daring and persistent 
competitor of Christianity, but it is not impossible that it tells the truth. 
Simon was not merely a heretic but a rival of Christianity, and an attempt 
at the end to reproduce the miracle of the Resurrection is entirely in 
character. His failure need have been no more of a blow to his followers 
than the crucifixion of Jesus to the disciples, and could no doubt have been 
satisfactorily explained so as to constitute no obstacle to the growth of 
the sect. 

Of the history of Simonianism, apart from its theology and a few details 
of its worship, there is little knowledge, but there is no reason to suppose 
that it was ever a religion of the magnitude or influence of Marcionism and 
Valentinianism. It is certain from Justin’s remarks that there were 
Simonians in Samaria in his time, and it is at least probable that there were 
also some in Rome. Celsus mentions them in his attack on Christianity, 
and Origen writing against him from Palestine circa a.D. 244-249 remarks 
that only a handful of them remained.? This is fair evidence that they 
were at least not flourishing in the East at this time, and the absence of 
fresh information in Western sources after Hippolytus encourages the 
supposition that the sect came to an end late in the third or early in the 
fourth century. 

1 Vercelli Acts, 32. 

* Ref. vi. 20. 3. 

3 Contra Celsum, i. 57 70édynce Se cal Tluwy 6 Lapapeds udyos 7H maryela 
vpehécOar Tivds. Kal rore wev hrdryce, vuvi 5 Tos wdvTas ev TH olkoupern ovK 
@ore Zimwviavods ebpeiv Tov apiOudy oluat TpidKxovra, Kal Taxa mAelovas elrov ToY 
bvrwv. elot 5é wept tiv Tadaorivny opddpa édhaxiorou THs Sé Nowris olkovpévys 
ovdapnod 7d bvoua avTod, Kal’ hy 7OEAnoE SbEav Tepl éavTod Siackeddoa. Cf. idem 
vi. 11 ovdapyot yap ris olxounévns Liuwriavol. Cotelier (Patres Apostolici, i. p. 
512 n. 2) suggests that the number thirty here is a reminiscence of the thirty 
disciples of John the Baptist (Rec. ii. 8, Hom. ii. 23) as the Dositheans aré 
credited with the same number of survivors, Contra Celsum vi. 11 oi 6é 
AootOnvol ovdé mrpérepoy Fxpacav* vuv dh mavTed@s émideAolracw, wate Tov Sov 
abr&v loropetcbat dpiOudy ov« elvar év Tots Tpidxovra. It is significant that in both 
passages Dositheus and Simon are associated. 

The later 

The Persian 
tribe of 


Notre XIV. Pavn anp THE Magus 
By Artuur Darsy Nock? 

1. Magi to the time of Alexander the Great: early derogatory use of name 
by Greeks and derived sense of ‘quack’: later revision of this 
estimate : survival of derived use. 

2. How far was the connexion of the Magi and magic justified? differ- 
ence of ancient and modern ideas of religion and magic: the Magi 
in origin dignified priesthood, but ultimate explanation of the use 
of words derived from them to describe magic probably lies in their 
strange foreign rites. 

3. (i.) Development of Magus concept in Hellenistic period and its exten- 
sion beyond racial boundaries. 

(ii.) Canonization of the association with magic through the book ascribed 
to Ostanes and similar works. 

4, Summary on meaning of pdyos. 

5. Jews as magicians and as religious confidants. 

6. The story type—(1) faith produced by a miracle, (2) the conflict of 
representatives of rival religions. 

7. Its place in Acts. 

In considering the story told in Acts xiii. 6-12 we have first to ask 
ourselves what the word pwdyos means in a text of this period. We 
shall see that it can mean one of two things: (1) a Persian fire-priest ; 
(2) a magician or quack; and in order to put this double meaning 
in its right setting we must survey a long process of development. 
The subject is in fact a chapter in the history of the interaction of 
East and West. 

1. payos is a loanword in Greek, borrowed from Persian to 
describe the priestly Median tribe. Members of this tribe performed 
the daily worship of fire,” and one of them had to be present at every 
sacrifice and sing a chant narrating the birth of the gods.* The name 
Magus occurs once only in the Avesta, from which fact Moulton has 
inferred that it was originally a name given to the tribe by outsiders *; 

1 IT am indebted to Professors F. C. Burkitt, R. P. Casey, F. N. Robinson, 
H. J. Rose, M. Rostovtzeff, G. A. S. Snyder, for help of various kinds. 

2 Strabo xv. 3. 15, p. 733. 

3 Herodotus i. 132. 

4 Harly Zoroastrianism, pp. 428 ff. Cf. Chr. Bartholomae, Altiranisches 
Worterbuch; H. Giimtert, Der arische Weltkénig und Heiland, pp. 108 f., on its 
etymology. G. connects it with magha, ‘ might,’ ‘ power.’ On Persian religion 
in general cf. now C. Clemen, Pauly-Wissowa, Supp. v. 679 ff. 


but its use in the Behistun inscription shows that it was an official 
title in the sixth century B.c., and it remained such in Sassanid times.’ 
The caste has continued till our times, though the course of time has 
brought changes. 

The Magi are therefore a dignified priestly tribe like that of Levi 
in Israel. An admirable illustration of one and his assistant in their 
religious duties is afforded by a bas-relief of the fifth century B.c. 
found at Dascylium and made by an artist who was either a Greek 
or dominated by Greek art.*? Their functions are ritual, and they are 
also credited with skill in interpreting dreams.® 

It is therefore with some surprise that we find wdyos used in xéy05 
the fifth century B.c. to mean ‘quack.’ So it is uttered in anger 
by Oedipus of Tiresias in Sophocles, O.7. 387 (Tiresias is a 
diviner, not a magician). In Euripides, Orestes 1497, Helen’s dis- 
appearance is explained 7rot dapydKovow 7) pdywv Téxvacow 7 
Oedv KAorais, and wdyor is employed of magicians in general. A 
significant example of this sense is given by Hippocrates, On the 
Sacred Disease, a work assigned to the end of the fifth century B.c. 
The author is arguing against the view that epilepsy is a divine 
disease and says, ch. 2, “ The men who first sanctified this disease 
must, I think, have been of the type of our present-day magi and 
purifiers and mendicants and humbugs. They actually pretend to 
be very pious and to have special knowledge.” He uses the verb 
payevdw in this sense, mentioning the claims of such men to bring 
down the moon and to darken the sun and to make storm or calm, 
which are the ordinary claims of a Greek magician.* The derivative 
noun payeta appears, so far as I know, first in the Helena of Gorgias, 
now commonly accepted as genuine of the same period. Gorgias 
is discussing four possible explanations of Helen’s going to Troy— 
divine compulsion, human force, persuasion by word, and the passion 
of love. A propos of the third hypothesis he speaks of inspired 
émwodat or charms, able to give pleasure or to remove pain, and 
explains this by yonreia, continuing yonreias d€ Kal payeias Sucoai 
TéxvaL evpynvTat, ai eior Puyfs dpunuata Kai Sdéyns amatiwata.® 

1 K. Herzfeld, Patkuli, i. 80, 82, magus of magi, 121, 213. 
2 Macridy Bey, Bull. Corr. Hell. xxxvii. pp. 348 ff. pl. viii.; F. Cumont, 
Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, p. 135, Fig. 10, 275, note 29. 
. § Moulton, pp. 182 ff.; C. Clemen, Die griechischen und lateinischen Nachrichten 
aber die persische Religion, pp. 205 ff. Achmes in his Oneirocriticon gives what 
profess to be Indian, Persian, and Egyptian explanations. I do not know whether 
they have any relation to their supposed origins. 

* Ch. 3 bors olds Te mepixabalpwy éorl Kal payetwv amdyew Toodrov wdos: 
4 i yap dvOpwros payetwr kal OUwv cernvny Kabapjoe Kal Lov ddariel kal xewova 
kal evdlay moujoer. In Plato, Rep. p. 572 B, udyor=clever deceivers. 

5 Something seems to be lacking from the text: the two arts are probably, 
as Immisch suggests, prose and verse. 


This passage is very important, for the matter-of-fact way in which 
Gorgias uses payeia as an amplificatory synonym for yonreta 
indicates that, whether the abstract noun was or was not already 
common in this sense, he could depend on his hearers so under- 
standing it. When Plato, Alcib. I. p. 122 4, says wayeiav . . . TH 
Zwpodorpov Tob ‘Qpoudlov—éeore dé tobro Gedv Oepazeia he has 
to explain his meaning.’ Aristotle and Dinon protested against 
the common view, Aristotle saying t)v 5é€ yontuknv payeiav odd’ 
éyvwoar to avoid the ordinary assumption,’ but the use in question 
of zdyos remained general in Greece, pdyos being a more colourful 
word than ydns, and gave its sense to magus. That this linguistic 
practice became universal appears from the use of magicus in Roman 
law.’ How denuded of special and ethnic significance pdyos became 
is shown by the statement of Vettius Valens, writing in the second 
or third century, that a particular stellar conjuncture makes 
magi, cheats, sacrificers, doctors, astrologers, and members of other 
kindred trades‘: again in the Confessio Sancti Cypriani the saint 
studies in Egypt and Chaldaea but not with the Magi, although 
he says of himself (ch. 7) dvopacros Hunv puayos piAdcodgos,® and 
in the cognate ‘Opodoyia edited by Radermacher is Kuzpuavos 6 
pidyos, busied with payeias, and possessed of payikat ypadal.® 
Further, Pausanias v. 27. 3 speaking of the bronze horse dedi- 
cated by Phormis at Olympia says d57jAa d€ Kat ddAws Eortw avdpos 
pdyouv codia yevéobas 7a ovpBaivovra T@ iam and passes on to 
say that he has seen another wonder in Lydia, uaywv pévror codias 
ovee adTo amnAAaypévov. This other wonder is the kindling of 
the wood by a Magus at Hierocaesarea and Hypaepa. Clearly to 
Pausanias pdyos connotes in primis simply ‘ magician.’ 

1 A similar matter-of-fact use in Theophrastus, Historia Plantarum, ix. 15.7, 
a propos of moly: xphcbat dé aire mpbs Te TH drekipdpuaka kal rds paryelas (A. 
Hort translates ‘ against spells and magic arts,’ but the meaning is probably 
‘for antidotes and magic arts’); a definition in Apuleius, Apol. 26. So also 
Porphyry and Pseudo-Chrysostom ; cf. Cumont, T'extes et monuments figurés 
relatifs aux mystéres de Mithra, i. 36,. 

2 Cited by Diogenes Laertius in his proem. Aristotle’s statement is import- 
ant in view of his and his school’s interest in Persian thought. A work called 
Mavyixés was ascribed by some to him, by others to Antisthenes. 

3 Mommsen, Rémisches Strafrecht, pp. 639 ff., and p. 173 infra. 

4 Anthologiae, p. 74. 17 Kroll, rove? yap pdyous mAdvous Ovras larpovs dorpo- 
Néyous dxAaywyods kal tpamefiras mapaxapdxras duovoypddous did Te mavoupylas 
kal émiBécews kal d6dov ras mpdéers Stovxobvras. Clem. Al. Strom. vi. 3. 31, says 
Tovs év KXewvais wdyous of the local hail-watchers. 

5 In the Cyprian of Baluzius and in A.SS. Sept. vii. 204 ff. So Herodotus 
and Dinon ap. Cic. De divin. i. 46. 

8 Griechische Quellen zur Faustsage (Sitzungsber. Ak. Wiss. in Wien, 206 iv.), 
pp. 84, 16, 104. 


2. Can we explain this applied use of udyos as resting on true The origin 
observation of the magical practices of Persian Magi, as in fact such Gana 
a generalization as that by which astrologers in general were designated “°"™* 
as Chaldaei? This is a question very hard to answer, for of the 
character of the Magi in pre-Sassanian times we know hardly anything 
except what Greek writers tell us. Now there is nothing to suggest 
that any of them were familiar with the Persian language, and it 
must always be remembered that the Greek was seldom a good 
observer of strange religions, prone as he was to hasty conclusions 
and identifications and to a contempt or to a veneration which 
were equally uncritical. In any case all that is asserted by Greeks 
professing to describe the Magi is that they interpreted dreams,* 
and that by their charms they caused a violent wind on the Strymon 
to stop. The second statement may well mean no more than 
that they invoked good spirits or used apotropaic rites to avert 
evil spirits.* It is probably in the order of prayers for rain or the 
celebration of the Mass for special purposes, which an alien might 
describe as ezwdai.* The observations made by those Greeks who 
had studied the Magi of any particular place are in striking contrast 
to the generalizations of those Greeks who talked vaguely. It is 
well worthy of note that among the various charges brought by 
St. Basil against the payovoator who inherited their tradition magic 
does not appear.° 

If we turn to our Persian sources we read of what is in them 
called by words corresponding to magic as something on the side 
of evil in the continual cosmic struggle. The Zoroastrian confession 

1 Yasna 30. 3 refers in one translation to a dream vision, but is hardly 
relevant to oneiromancy as a practice. 

2 Herodotus vii. 191. Cf. N. Terzaghi, Arch. f. Relig. xi. pp. 145 ff., for the 
scourging of the Hellespont; Cumont, Comptes rendus de l Acad. des Inscr., 
1917, 278,, on the throwing of chains into it. Both are what we should call 
sympathetic magic. 

3 So Rapp, Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenldndischen Gesellschaft, xx. p. 77. 
Of course the control of weather is commonly ascribed to Geto dvdpes like 
Empedocles (Diels, Fragm. d. Vorsokratiker*, i. 201. 5). 

4 IT am not speaking of the abuses discussed by G. L. Kittredge, Witchcraft 
in Old and New England, pp. 147, 466 f.; they are instructive as an example 
of the possibility of decline later suggested for the Magi. 

5 Hp. 258 (Migne xxxii. 952 f.): so also Epiphanius, Adv. Haereses, iii. 13. 
Strabo, xv. 2. 39, p. 762, in a list of prophets honoured by various peoples 
includes oi wdyou kal vexvoudyTes Kal ére of Neydpmevor Nekavoudvrers Kal Vdpoudvres. 
Here the practice is associated with Persia (cf. Boehm, Pauly-Wissowa ix. 79 f.) 
but not certainly ascribed to the Magi. (A similar list, Brahmans, Magi, ‘EA\jvwv 
oi Peodoyixdéraro., is given by Proclus, Comm. in Timaeum, vol. i. p. 208 
Diehl; here they are adduced as sages whose example supports the practice 
of prayer.) 


of faith includes a renunciation of ‘‘ the Daevas and all possessed 
by them, the sorcerers and their devices, and every existing being 
of the sort,” * and the legends of Zoroaster tell how sorcerers and 
enchanters endeavoured to destroy him when young,” and how he 
struggled against superstition, sorcery, and devil-worship.* These 
traditions give us the conscious orientation of Zoroastrianism, though 
it is indeed the purified and canonized Zoroastrianism of the Sassanian 
: Modern students looking in Persian tradition for an explanation 
of the Greek use of pdyos and payea as typical words have drawn 
attention to a talisman given by Zoroaster,* to his possession of a 
feather of the bird Varengana credited with the power of giving 
protection and glory,° and to his use of water from the sacred river 
Daitya mixed with consecrated hdm-juice as an elixir.° But surely 
these things are in the world of folktale, not of serious magic. Em- 
phasis has been laid also on the Persian use of spells for medicinal 
and other apotropaic purposes.’ This was no doubt common, and 
may be due in part to Babylonian analogies,* but it should be noted 
first that the use of these proceedings is world-wide and was familiar 
in Greece, secondly that medical magic is not associated with the 
Magi in particular.’ The Magi are not specialists in this side of life, 
though their presence in such an act might be thought useful. So 

1 Yasna 12. 5 (transl. by L. H. Mills, Sacred Books of the East, xxxi. p. 249); 
cf. Cumont, T'extes et monuments, i. 141, for parallels. 

2 A. V. W. Jackson, Zoroaster, pp. 10 ff. 

3 Id., Zoroastrian Studies, pp. 27, 103, 280. This picture of Zoroaster sur- 
vives in Manichee times (if we accept Le Coq’s identification, Sitzungsber. Preuss. 
Akad., 1908, 398). 

4 Zoroastrian Studies, p. 255. 

5 Yast 14. 35; cf. Geiger, Ostiranische Kultur im Altertum, p. 332. 

8 Zoroastrian Studies, pp.280f. For miracles later ascribed to him by Shara- 
stani, etc., cf. R. J. H. Gottheil, Studies in Honour of Henry Drisler, p. 50. Like 
the subjugation of the daevas by Jamshid (Firdausi, Shanama, i. p. 33) they are 
notrelevant. Late tradition makes Zoroaster an arch-magician. Jackson cites, 
op. cit. p. 83, texts from Clement and Minucius stating the claims of the Magi to 
subdue demons, but the latter expressly cites Ostanes, and see p. 178 infra. 

7 Vendidad vii. 44, and ix. (for cleansing from defilement by a demon): in- 
cidentally the process is thought of as driving away diseases, cf. xxii. 21, p. 234, 
transl. Darmsteter (Sacred Books of the East, iv.). In general cf. A. J. Carnoy in 
Encycl. Rel. Eth. viii. p. 294, and above all, Le Muséon, ser. iii. vol. i. pp. 171 ff. 

8 Cf. Cumont, Religions orientales*, p. 174; R. Campbell Thompson, ‘ Assyrian 
Medical Texts’ in Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. xix. No. 3, pp. 29 ff. One clear instance 
of Persian borrowing from Babylon is the festival of Sakaia (C. Clemen, Die 
Religionen der Erde, p. 152). 

® Vendidad vii. 44 mentions healers. Vendidad vii. 41 specially says “a 
healer shall heal a priest for the blessing of the just.” Vendidad xx. refers to 
a mythical priest-healer. 


now among the Parsis in Persia a mobed is paid to read passages 
from the Yasna, the Yasts, or the Khordah-avesta, in order to conjure 
away the evil eye or cure a sick child.’ In apotropaic rites the Magi 
were no doubt paramount: Plutarch mentions that side of their 

Such proceedings were in ancient civilizations and are in many 
areas to-day the equivalent of our antiseptics and inoculations. 
Man thinks himself to be surrounded by a whole world of evil powers 
against whom he must arm. Mayeia as later understood includes 
such methods of self-protection, but it includes much more; and 
in particular methods of divination by water, of influencing the 
affections of others, and of inflicting physical harm on them. In 
this range it is as remote from the normal standards of Persian 
priesthood as would be temple prostitution from those of the 
Catholic Church, and it is quite clear that if the Magi had contact 
with magic they were not professional magicians in the later sense 
of payoe. 

How then did this terminology arise? To answer this we must abnor 
consider what we mean and what the ancients mean by magic ; other- magic. : 
wise there is a danger of real confusion of thought. 

In the ordinary colloquial language of educated men ‘ magic’ 
and ‘magical’ have inherited most of the meanings discussed in 
the previous paragraphs. Neither has any longer any connexion 
with its original Persian surroundings. But both have retained 
the rather contemptuous connotation belonging to them in Greek 
and Latin literature, so that they customarily afford terms of abuse 
for religious ceremonies which are regarded as superstitious. This 
usage is the natural continuation of the classical use of magus and 


In the terminology used by students of the history of religion 
it has been found convenient to use ‘magic’ in a clearer and 
narrower sense. In this sense it means the attempt to divert the 
course of nature by methods which to our science appear to be of a 
non-rational kind, or which to the user appear to rest on some hidden 
and peculiar wisdom: the charming of warts we call magic, birth- 
control we do not. We distinguish it from science which proceeds 
by rational methods, and from religion which if it seems to influence 
the course of events does so by asking some superior being or beings 
to do what is needed instead of either operating directly by some 

1 Carnoy, Muséon, l.c. pp. 183 f. We find an interesting dedication to 
Artemis Anaitis (probably from Gjeuldi) by a woman, repirrwua éxovea xal 
étgoGetoa bd ris iepeias (priestess of Anahita), Cumont, Comptes rendus de 
? Acad. des Inscr., 1915, 271. The goddess as represented on the accompanying 
relief is of the type of the Ephesian Artemis. 

2 De Iside et Osiride, 46, p. 369 E. 

Its inappro- 
to the 


kind of sympathetic action or again compelling the superior being 
or beings. 

Now this modern use of ‘ magic’ does not fit the ancient world.* 
Certain public practices which we should characterize as magical 
are not so characterized. The communal rain-making at Crannon 
in Thessaly is mentioned as a peculiar local claim,” that on mount 
Lykaion in Arcadia as a rite, like the aquaelicium at Rome®*: it is 
in fact like prayers for rain or a procession to bless the crops. The 
envotitement of citizens who disloyally failed to obey a call to go off 
to a colony, by burning wax images of them, is recorded in a public 
document at Cyrene as a perfectly natural proceeding. Like the 
burning of hostile armour to Lua Rua at Rome it is mentioned as 
a rite: no deity is mentioned.‘ Again, the use of émqwédat or spells 
is not confined to magicians. The doctor used them, as Sophocles, 
Ajax 584, reminds us.* 

There is not, then, as with us, a sphere of magic in contrast to 
the sphere of religion. Further, the words used to designate magical 
acts do not for the most part possess a precise and technical meaning. 
diAtpov, love-charm, is indeed fairly specialized, but it also is used 
in a good sense as ‘ winning attractiveness.’ ddpyaxor is drug as well 
as poison or magical material.® émwdy means charm, but Aeschylus 
feels no scruple in making Apollo use it metaphorically and say, 
“The Father (Zeus) made no spells for these troubles ” (the shedding 
of blood), rovrwv érmdas odK émoincev matip"; the derivative 
€mwodds is used with no depreciatory nuance ‘to charm towards’ or 
‘to charm from.’* yds, indeed, is either used literally for a wizard 
(as in the Phoronis, an epic thought to be not later than the seventh 

1 Cf. Fr. Pfister’s admirable article ‘Epode’ in Pauly-Wissowa, Supp. iv. 
323 ff. P. gives an excellent collection of material and conclusions which seem 
to me very sound. 

2 Antigonus, ‘Ioropidv rapaddtéwy cwvarywryy 15. 

3 Pausanias viii. 38. 4; Heraclides, Descriptio Graeciae, ii. 8 (Miiller, 
Geographi Graect Minores, i. 107), describes a custom on Mount Pelion which 
may have had this purpose, rain-making (probably) at Olbia by the priest 
of Zeus Olbios; E. H. Minns, Scythians and Greeks, p. 476,. Note the Pharisee 
rain-making ceremony of Sukkot, L. Finkelstein, Harv. Theol. Rev. xxii. p. 195. 
For rain-making in a late Jewish collection of stories, W. Bousset, Nachr. Gott. 
Gel. Ges., 1916, p. 484. : 

4 Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft, xxiv. pp. 172 f. (As Deubner has argued, 
it is likely that such rites not directed to personal deities had no small part in 
early Roman religion.) We may compare the burning in effigy by the Holy 
Office of offenders whose persons could not be secured. 

5 So the son of Autolycus, Odyss. xix. 457: the Cyclops can use one if he 
knows it (Euripides, Cyclops, 646). 

8 Cf. Journ. Theol. Stud. xxx. p. 391. 7 Zum. 649. 

8 Plato, Leges, p. 671 4; Phaedo, p. 78 A. 



century B.C.'), or metaphorically for a quack, humbug, impostor. 
And yet Plato did not feel that the operation of the ydns differed 
toto caelo from ordinary cult. He makes Diotima say in her discourse 
on the functions of daemones: ‘‘ Through their care goes the whole 
science of divination, the art of the priests and of all those concerned 
with sacrifices and initiations and spells and all divining and goeteia. 
God has no intercourse with men: it is through this race that all 
intercourse happens between gods and men.” * Spells and goeteia 
are on a footing with sacrifice and divination, just as in Rep. 364B 
religious impostors claim power obtained Ovaiats Te Kal émwdais, by 
sacrifice and spells, and in the passage quoted earlier from Hippocrates 
mageia is classified with other popular beliefs, and the antithesis is 
one of supernaturalism and non-supernaturalism. So later Pliny, 
before treating of curative spells, asks polleantne aliquid uerba et 
incantamenta carminum, and in answering gives among his illustrations 
of people’s unconscious faith in this power: quippe wictimas caedi 
sine precatione non uidetur referre aut deos rite consuli. He refers 
to fixed public forms of prayer, and the deuotio used by the Decii, 
and Tuccia’s prayer.® 

Pfister rightly concludes, ‘‘ dass kein prinzipieller Unterschied 
zwischen Zauberspruch und Gebet so wenig wie zwischen Zauberei 
und Religion besteht.”* This is true, and incidental ancient 
attempts at theoretical differentiation are clearly the products of 
individual sophistication.® 

What then do the ancients mean by magia? Broadly speaking Magia. 
three things: the profession by private individuals of the possession 
of technical ability enabling them to supply recipes or perform rites 
to help their clients and damage their clients’ enemies; the use by 
such clients or by others of such proceedings to damage enemies ; 
and—corresponding to the vague modern use already mentioned— 
the religions belonging to aliens or on any general ground disapproved. 

1 Kinkel, Epicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, i. 211, No. 2 (of the Idaean 
Dactyls: the passage treats of their discovery of iron). For the date of the poem 
ef. Schmid-Stihlin, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, i. p. 294. Herodotus 
ii. 33 describes dwellers in the Sahara as yéyres, and in iv. 105 he says that the 
Neuri, a Scythian tribe, are probably y. since it is reported that each of them 
becomes a wolf for a few days of every year and then resumes his shape. Here, 
as in Plato, Rep. p. 380 D, there is a nuance of irony. 

2 Symp. p. 202 EB. rederai, translated ‘initiations,’ has a wider range of 
meaning ; cf. H. Bolkestein, Religionsgesch. Versuche u. Vorarbeiten, xX1. ii. p. 57. 

8 N.H. xxviii. 10 ff. Cf. Gnomologium Epicteteum, 67 (88), in H. Schenkl’s 
Epictetus, ed. mai.? p. 492, comep 6 iros ob mepiuéver Nerds Kal yonrelas iv’ dvaretAy. 

* Pauly-Wissowa, Supp. iv. 325. 7. 

5 Suidas s.vv. wayela, wayix?, yonreia. Such a definition is akin to the 
Peripatetic idea of derdacuovia as contrasted with edcé8ea and with ddebrns 
(P. J. Koets, Accordacuovta). 

Roman law 
and magic. 


The third use is natural. We find the supposed priest of Dionysus 
in Euripides, Bacchae 234, described as yons éawdds Avdias amo 
xOoves.' Again Pliny includes human sacrifice and Druidism under 
the head of magic.? In the Acta disputationis S. Achatit 5 the Roman 
magistrate is made to say ideo magi estis quia nouum nescio quod 
genus religionis inducitis. If we return for a moment to Persia 
we there find magic closely associated with the older worship which 
Zoroastrianism has sought to replace. 

Roman law had of course to deal with various practices which 
fall within the sphere of what we call magic. In early times 
the law of the Twelve Tables dealt with attempts to remove or 
appropriate one’s neighbour’s crops by spells. Later we find the 
law prohibiting nocturnal sacrifices, which might mean seditious 
meetings, or such a danger to public order as the movement re- 
pressed by the Senatus consultum de Bacchanalibus, and liable to 
punish professional activity in magic. It is clear that the presiding 
magistrate must have had considerable discretionary power in 
determining what was punishable as magic, and that under the 
Empire the suspicion of political intrigue intensified the official 
attitude against magicians.* It was so with Chaldaei or astrologers. 

1 Cf. Hubert in Daremberg-Saglio, Dict. Antiq. iii. 1499 f.; Pfister, J.c. 342 £. 
Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. iv. 16, tells how the hierophant at Eleusis sought to 
exclude Apollonius of Tyana as ui xa@apds Ta Saudvia. This may be genuine 
feeling against a yéns (Farnell, Cults, iii. p. 168), but it is really just background 
for the hero’s prophecy and hangs together with the idea that the Oetos dvip 
has an inherent priestliness which dispenses him from ordinary requirements : 
ef. Porphyry, Vita Plotini 10 éxetvous (sc. rods Oeovs) Set pds éue EpxerOat, ob Eue 
mpos éxelvovs. (But in Marinus, Vita Procli 19, we read that the philosopher 
should be the hierophant of the whole universe : we have to do with a man who 
was pratiquant.) Cf. Apollonius Tyan. Hp. 16 udyous oter detv dvoudfecOar rods 
amd IvOayépov girocddpous, GSE rou Kal rods dard "Opdéws* eyed 5é kal rods dd Tod 
Servos olwar Sety dvoudferOar pdyous, ef mwéddovow elvar Oetok re Kal Sixacor. 
Neopythagoreanism was particularly open to accusations of magic. There is 
an instructive parallelism between the charges made against Apollonius and 
those made against the Apostles in apocryphal Acts; cf. O. Weinreich, Gebet 
und Wunder, p. 196 (=Genethliakon W. Schmid, p. 362). 

SN... xxx. 12 f. 

3 Mommsen, Rémisches Strafrecht, pp. 639 ff.; P. Vallette, L’ Apologie 
d@ Apulée, pp. 34ff.; Fr. Beckmann, Zauberei und Recht in Roms Frithzeit 
(Osnabriick, 1923); Ed. Fraenkel, Gnomon, i. pp. 185 ff. The meaning of mala 
carmina has been disputed. The phrase can cover ‘satire’ and ‘imprecations 
to do harm,’ for the two things are closely allied and sometimes combined ; 
cf. F. N. Robinson, Studies in the History of Religions presented to C. H. Toy, 
pp. 95 ff., and G. L. Hendrickson, Am. Journ. Phil. xlvi. pp. 101 ff. Note that 
Cato the elder, De re rustica, 160, records medical spells. 

I take it that the gravamen of the charge against Apuleius lay in the fact 
that the disposition of Pudentilla’s property was affected. For the official 
attitude cf. Dio Cassius lii. 36. 3 rods dé 57 waryeuras ravu ovK etvat mpoojKel. 



They were not as a rule people of such position as to be able to get 
very much attention paid to their possible rights. 

One text which we must consider is Constantine’s rescript, dated constan- 
June 22, 321, in Codex Theodosianus ix. 16. 3,‘ and assigned by pa do 
Seeck to May 23, 3187: eorwm est scientia punienda et seuerissimis 
merito legibus uindicanda qui magicis adcincti artibus aut contra 
hominum moliti salutem aut pudicos ad libidinem defixisse animos 
detegentur: nullis wero criminationibus implicanda sunt remedia 
humanis quaesita corporibus aut in agrestibus locis, ne maturis 
uindemiis metuerentur wimbres aut ruentis grandinis lapidatione 
quaterentur, innocenter adhibita suffragia quibus non cuiusque salus 
aut existimatio laederetur sed quorum proficerent artes ne diuina 
munera et labores hominum sternerentur. Now it does not follow from 
this that magic to do harm or inspire love was grouped with weather 
charms and medical charms under a single category of magic in the 
anthropological sense.* There is no mention in this edict of the 
punishment appropriate to magi. Its purpose is one of toleration, 
of defining what was anyhow safe and admissible: just as a rescript: 
of Diocletian and Maximian says, artem geometriae discere atque 
exercert publice intersit, ars autem mathematicae damnabilis interdicta 
est. Such definition was clearly called for. Later in the fourth 
century we find many condemnations for acts which on Constantine’s 
definition of magic were regarded as licit ; these may be in part due 
to the official fear of treason, but are perhaps as much due to the 
intense popular fear of those guos maleficos ob facinorum magnitudinem 
uolgus appellat,® and to the feeling that it is dangerous to the com- 
munity to have in its midst men who may draw down divine anger 
on everyone.’ A very clear instance of the intensity of this terror 
of magic is a rescript of Constantius: Multi magicis artibus ausi 
elementa turbare, uitas insontium labefactare non dubitant et Manibus 
accitis audent uentilare, ut quisque suos conficiat malis artibus inimicos ; 

1 =Codex Iustinianus, ix. 18. 4. 

2 Regesten der Kaiser und Pdapste, 62. 16, 166. 

3 Seneca, Nat. Quaest, iv. 6 b, 6-9, illustrates the methods used at Cleonae 
to avert hail by referring to the injunction in the Twelve Tables, ne quis alienos 
fructus excantassit, and Clement of Alexandria, Strom. vi. 3. 31, speaks of rovs 
év KiXewvais udyous, but both write after the coming into being of the Ostanes 
literature discussed later. 

4 Cod. Iust. ix. 18. 2. 

5 Cod. Theod. xvi. 16. 4: for the word cf. S. Augustine, Ciw. dei, x. 9; 
Mommsen, op. cit. pp. 639 f. For the state of feeling cf. J. Maurice, Comptes 
rendus de l’ Académie des Inscriptions, 1926, pp. 132 ff., and later analogies in 
Kittredge, Witchcraft, pp. 358 f. 

® Cf. Deuteron. xviii. 10-14, cited in Mosaicarum et Romanarum legum 

collatio, xv. (Seckel-Kuebler, Iurisprudentiae anteiustinianae reliquiae’, 1. ii. 


hos, quoniam naturae peregrini sunt, feralis pestis absumat.* This is 
hysteria. The line drawn by Constantine became normal.’? It should 
be remarked that the provisions against magici libri did not affect 
the preservation of the relevant portions of the elder Pliny and the 
composition and preservation of the work of Marcellus of Bordeaux, 
and later at Byzantium of the Geoponica.* Nor is there any reason 
to suppose that the law took cognisance of theurgy such as is 
associated with the Oracula Chaldaica and is handled by Iamblichus, 
On the Mysteries, or of such a séance as that described by Porphyry 
in his Life of Plotinus, ch. 10, though the animus of St. Augustine’s 
polemic against theurgy suggests that it was not negligible at 
the time.* 

There is then no sphere of magic at once distinguishable from the 
sphere of religion and from that of science, though magic and religion 
together can be opposed to science, as we saw in Hippocrates (so Pliny, 
having incidentally handled magicas uanitates previously & propos 
of herbs and animals, etc., passes to a special treatment in xxx.). 
What gets the name of magic is a varied complex of things, mainly 
qua professional or qua criminal in intent or qua alien. We may 
explain the selection of udyos as a typical name, and the formation 
of the noun payeia from it as due to the impression made on un- 
friendly Ionian spectators by Persian priests, with their queer 
garments and tiaras and mouth masks—as we see them on the relief 
from Dascylium—performing uncomprehended rites, uttering un- 
intelligible prayers, and indispensable at sacrifice. Egypt had what 

1 Cod. Theod. ix. 16. 5, dated December 4, 357, which Seeck, 47. 5, 203, 
corrects to 356. The same tone is apparent in Cod. Theod. ix. 16. 6 (July 5, 358 
in the Cod. ; July 5, 357 according to Seeck 204). 

2 Maurice, J.c. p. 187. Giving an abortive or a love philtre was punishable 
in any case (Paulus, Sententiae, v. 23. 14). In connexion with rulings on magic 
Paulus states that if a man dies of a drug given for his health the giver is 
punished (v. 23. 19). 

3 The magic cryptogram published by A. S. Hunt, Proc. Brit. Acad. xv., is 
in cryptogram no doubt because of the professional importance of secrecy. 

4 Ciuitas dei, x. 9, where note the distinction drawn by Neoplatonists 
between this theurgia and magic. On these rites cf. J. Bidez, Revue belge de 
philologie et @ histoire, vii. p. 1477 ; some knowledge of them may be behind the 
passage of Confessio S. Cypriani discussed by me in J.7'.S. xxviii. (I hope to 
return to this topic: it seems to me that we may have to reckon there also 
with material like the Testament of Solomon.) A reference to these rites I 
suspect in Julian, Contra Christianos, p. 197 Zeds . . . dé5wxev juiv dud Tov 
lepav rexvav éricxeyw. The difficulties in which Psellus found himself were 
raised by Christian orthodoxy ; cf. J. Bidez, Cat. MSS. alchimiques grecs, vi. 115. 

5 For an Ionian impression compare the statement of Heraclitus ap. Clem. 
Alex. Protr. ii. p. 16. 24 Stahlin, that he made his oracular utterances vuxrimddos 
udyous Bdxxors Mivars wioras, “ to night-roamers, magi, bacchants, maenads, 
initiates”; he threatens them with fiery destruction and taunts them with the 



an anthropologist recognizes as magic—constraints of gods, threats 
to gods, and so on—and had it deeply embedded in its religion: but 
not in such a form that a casual Greek observer would have known 
of it. It was the external aspect of Persian cultus which counted, 
not the meaning of the rite. Increasing information in the fourth 
century B.C. brought with it a more favourable picture of the 
Magi, but even in the second century of our era the fire-worship 
remains a mysterious thing to Pausanias, who says that the Magus 
read charms, and the dry wood piled on the altar must kindle 
without a flame. 

The terminology gained importance, as we shall see. One cause 
may be mentioned now. No one would call himself a ydéns: it meant 
quack and had no background. But pdyos, while it meant quack, 
had a dignified history.. Even to Greeks who thought of the Magi 
as barbarians they might appear to possess a certain amount of 
hold over the supernatural: this could arise, not from an in- 
tellectuai or religious conviction but from a feeling, “they are the 
old priests and there may be something in them.” Englishmen in 
the eighteenth century went to the old Royal family at Paris to 
be touched for the King’s evil. There is even a story of George I. 
referring an applicant to the Pretender—with success, it is said.’ 
piayos and payeia were definitely adopted by the profession, as the 
magic papyri show.” 

3. In the Hellenistic period we have to reckon with two factors. The Hellen- 
One is the modification of the position of the Magi, the other the “"° ?"*- 
creation of supposedly Magian literature in Greek. The first of these 
may have affected the history of this terminology, the second 
certainly has. 

(i.) First, the position of the caste of Magi was not what it had been. The position 
Those who were in Persia probably lacked their old official standing Behar 
between Alexander’s conquest and the Parthian national revival in 
the second century B.c., and even in that they did not have the 
authority which the Sassanid régime gave to them in the third 

unworthiness of their mysteries. (At the same time it is possible that Heraclitus 
was influenced by Zoroastrianism; cf. L. A. Stella, Rendiconti Acc. Lincei, 
1927, pp. 571 ff.) Itis possible that the Persians regarded Artemis of Ephesus as 
the same as Anahita; they certainly used the temple; cf. Ch. Picard, .Lphése 
et Claros, pp. 606 ff. But note the arguments of W. H. Buckler and D. M. 
Robinson, Am. J. Arch. 2nd ser. xvii. (1913) pp. 368 ff., against any substantial 
Persian influence on the cult of Artemis at Sardis (though their scruples as 
to the existence of priestesses for Anahita are weakened by C. R. Ac. Inscr., 
1915, 271, cited above, p. 169). 

1 E. L. Hussey, Archaeological Journal, x. p. 201. 

* Cf. on them my article in Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, xv. 


century A.D.’ In tradition Alexander appears as their enemy and 
the destroyer of the old Avesta.* Be this as it may (and it is of course 
incompatible with all that we know of Alexander’s policy towards 
the conquered), there may well have been some relaxation of their 
organization. Magians may have sometimes married outside the 
caste,* and it seems just possible that aliens (presumably by some 
rite of adoption) were admitted occasionally to priestly positions, 
just as later Tabari records that Mihr-Nars destined his first son for 
the ecclesiastical career, and that Bahram-Gotz gave to him the 
second position in the Church.* This, dike the tale of the conversion 
of a Greek who is given a high religious position,® may be purely 
legendary. A Musulman was not perhaps sensitive to the minutiae 
of Persian religion ; but the tale looks like an act of special favourit- 
ism indicating the possibility of elasticity. 

Whatever happened in the native haunts of the Magi, their 
position im partibus was gravely affected. The Persian régime 
had naturally caused Magi to take up their abode in cities of 
Asia Minor, at least in those cities which were garrison towns 
or administrative centres. After the overthrow of the old order 
some of them stayed, and we know of them not merely in those 
kingdoms which cultivated Persian traditions (Commagene, Cappa- 
docia, Pontus), but also in Greek cities (Hypaepa and Hierocaesarea 

1 Cf. A. Christensen, L’Hmpire des Sassanidae (D. kgl. Danske Vidensk. 
Selsk. Skriften, 7 Raekke, historisk og filosofisk Afd. i. 1, 1907), pp. 17 f., 20, 34, 
64 ff.: for Sassanian assertion of faith on their coins, Herzfeld, Paikuli, i. 
pp. 44 ff.; for a supplement to Christensen, E. Stein, Byz.-neugriech. Jahr- 
biicher, i. pp. 50 ff. (political influence of this church at its height in middle of 
fifth century 4.D., strong from end of fourth to end of fifth). 

2 Gottheil, Hssays Drisler, p. 35 (a prophecy). 

3 Cf. Cumont, T'extes et monuments, i. p. 239 (in the Dinkart); Clemen, Re- 
ligionen, p, 161 (modern Parsis). 

4 Th. Néldeke, Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sassaniden aus 
der arabischen Chronik des Tabari, p. 452. 

5 A. V. W. Jackson, Zoroaster, pp. 89f. Normally speaking the hereditary 
principle was vital, as it still is among the Parsees (J. H. Moulton, The Treasure 
of the Magi, pp. 132 f.); cf. A. Christensen, pp. 20, 34, 65, for organization, and 
Clemen, Religionen, p. 161, for the double initiatory rites now admitting to the 
Parsee priesthood a man born in the class. In Acta S. Anastasii, p. 2 b7 Usener, 
we read of A. being taught Magian lore by hisfather. Cf. Apuleius, Aol. 26 “nec 
ulli temere inter Persas concessum est magum esse, haud magis quam regnare.”’ 
Philo, De specialibus legibus, iii. 100, says that no one was allowed to become 
king among the Persians ef wh mpérepov rod Mdywv yévous Kexowwwrnkas TvyxXdvot. 
This is, however, probably only a pointed way of putting what we read in 
Plato, Alcib. I. p. 122 a, Cicero, De diuin. i. 91, of the king’s education by the 
Magi—or a misunderstanding. On priestly families in Zoroastrian Armenia 
cf.'M. H. Ananikian in Hastings, Hnc. Rel. Hih. i. pp. 801 f.: he remarks that 
there is no record of a Magian caste in Armenia. 


in Lydia). Bardaisan in his Laws of the Countries, § 38, states that 
some of the Persians were scattered and lived in Media, Atropatene, 
Parthia, Egypt, and Phrygia, and were in every country called 
Magi. Now Magian colonies in the kingdoms might without 
difficulty keep up their traditions, though even there they could 
not avoid contact with the Greek culture around them’; but 
in Greek cities they were far more exposed to change. As their 
numbers dwindled they may very well have admitted others to their 
ranks by some sort of adoption. And it will be remembered that 
Pausanias speaks of the sanctuaries at Hierocaesarea and Hypaepa 
as belonging to Lydians called Persic, Avdots émixAnv Ilepatxois.* 
Further, a Graeco-Aramaic bilingual inscription found at Farasa 
(the ancient Ariaramneia-Rhodandos in Cappadocia), and assigned 
by H. Grégoire to the first century of or before our era, runs.thus: 
Laydpios Mayladd]pvov orparny[o]s ’Aptapapvet(as) eudyevoe 
MiOpy.? That is, Sagarios became a Magos of Mithras,‘ or officiated 
as Magos for Mithras.’ It would not be safe to insist in Greek of 
this type that the aorist must have its proper significance * became ’ 
rather than ‘was’; but the use of the verb is really unmistakable. 
If Sagarios had been of the priestly Magian tribe, we should have 
had not Laydpuos otpatnyos . . . eudyevoe, but Laydpios pdyos 
. €otpaTnynoe. It may further be remarked that this emphasis 
on Mithras belongs to the Hellenistic development of Persian religious 
ideas. Now in Mithraism those who had reached the fifth grade of 
initiation were called Persae, and it is quite thinkable that this implied 
something like St. Paul’s view of Gentile Christians as belonging to 
the new Israel. Persia, like Israel, was a holy nation with its hope ; 
and, as Meyer has reminded us, Zoroastrianism was universalist.® 
So the pdyos at Hypaepa was very likely no more necessarily of 

1 Cf. Journ. Hell. Stud. xlix. p. 114 on the mixture of Greek and Persian 
eschatology in the inscription on the funerary monument of Antiochus I. of 
Commagene. The style shows the same mixture: its superficial character is 
that of contemporary rhetoric, but its spirit and innere Form find their best 
analogy in Persian inscriptions and in the Sassanid inscriptions of Paikuli. 

For the blending of ideas cf. also Gnomon, vi. pp. 30 ff., and the prophecy 
current under the name of Hystaspes (Ganschinietz, Pauly-Wissowa, ix. 541 f. ; 
an exhaustive treatment by H. Windisch, ‘ Die Orakel des Hystaspes,’ in Verh. 
d. kon. Akademie-Amsterdam, Afd. Letterk. N.F. xxviii. p. 3, 1929). 

2 y. 27.5. We read of an dpxiuayos at Hypaepa in an inscription assigned 
to the third or fourth century a.p. (Kaibel, Zpigrammata Graeca, 537, No. 903 a). 

3 Comptes rendus de l’ Académie des Inscriptions, 1908, pp. 434 ff. Ed. 
Meyer, Ursprung und Anfdnge des Christentums, ii. p. 88, assigns it to the third 
century B.C. 

4 So Cumont translates, Les Religions orientales dans le paganisme romain‘, 
p. 274, note 23. 

5 So Grégoire. 6 Ursprung, ii. p. 73. 



Persian blood than Christian lewitae were of Jewish blood. There is 
another aspect of this Dispersion to be remembered. Magi left in 
isolation and perhaps stripped of former revenues may well have used 
their prestige and their reputation as magicians and have become 
more or less professional magicians. We certainly meet diviners from 
this region; Juvenal vi. 550 mentions Armenius uel Commagenus 
haruspex. ; 

Magical (ii.) The second new Hellenistic factor is the coming into circulation 

literature. jn and after the third century B.c. of various collections of magical 
recipes under the names of Ostanes, Zoroaster, and the Magi. We 
know them from quotations in the elder Pliny, Pseudo-Dioscorides, 
magic papyri, the Geoponica and elsewhere,’ and the elder Pliny 
gives us in N.H. xxx. 3 ff. an excellent illustration of the extent to 
which they had imposed on the popular imagination. The magic 
art, he says, undoubtedly started with Zoroaster in Persia, as all 
authorities agree. He quotes Eudoxus and Aristotle for the date 
of Zoroaster (here placed 6000 years before Plato’s death) and 
proceeds to record*the opinion of Hermippus ‘‘ who wrote most 
carefully about that whole art and set forth 2,000,000 lines written 
by Zoroaster, giving the titles of his works.” Pliny’s actual authority 
may well be Apion, who appears in the indices auctorum but not 
in the text *; but the tradition goes back to Hermippus, almost 
certainly the Hermippus who was a pupil of Callimachus. 

Pliny quotes Zoroaster for a method of determining the time 
to sow (xviii. 200), and several times in xxxvii. on the virtues of 
certain stones (150, 157, 159), and records his name in his indices 
auctorum. Ostanes he does not there record, but quotes in xxviii. 69, 
where O. is quoted after the Magi and Hesiod, and in §§ 256 and 
261; the Magi he quotes continually in xxvii., xxx. and xxxvil. It 
is quite clear that when he quotes Magi he means not ‘ magicians ’ 
in a vague way, but some definite body of doctrine; this follows 
from such passages as xxix. 138 magnam auctoritatem huie animali 
(sc. gryllo) perhibet Nigidius, maiorem magi, quoniam retro ambulat 
terramque terebret, stridat noctibus, and xxx. 100 sed et alios alligant 

1 E.g. Catalogus codicum astrologicorum Graecorum, ii. 192 ff, etc. Cumont, 
Textes et monuments, i. p. 33. 

2 So F. Miinzer, Beitrdge zur Quellenkritik der Naturgeschichte des Plinius, 
p. 130. We have a reference to Apion Ilepi udyou in Suidas, s.v. Idons, 1. ii. 139 
Bernhardy (no doubt taken by S. from one of the sources from which he draws 
his explanations of proverbs; cf. A. Adler, Suidas, 1. xix.), and in the proem of 
Diogenes Laertius. If this hypothesis is correct it is particularly notable that 
Egyptian magic is not mentioned by Pliny (a point remarked by Cumont, 
Religions orientales*, p. 295 n. 99). This should perhaps be explained from the 
fact that the Persian tradition was so thoroughly established. Is it also con- 
ceivable that Apion shifted responsibility from Egypt? I do not press this, for 
it is not clear to me that Apion would have regarded magic as disreputable. 


magi. It is probable that Pliny cites from some doxographic source, 
giving the plural Magi like the of Xtwuxol, of "Emuxovpetot, of 
TlAarwvixoi of texts recording placita of philosophers. In xxi, 
62 he gives Pseudo-Democritus as an intermediary source,* and it 
may be that this was commonly his source. 

It is much to be desired that the relations of this sot-disant 
Persian material to Persian ideas should be fully investigated. 
Eduard Meyer has remarked on a point of contact between Ostanes 
and the Avesta, though noting that Persian tradition is changed.* 
We may here note the virtues ascribed to puppy’s brains (xxix. 117) 
and to dog’s gall (xxx. 82), since the dog was in Iranian theory very 
much an animal on the side of good : we may also note the generally 
apotropaeic and medicinal character of this material, which agrees 
with some of the scanty indications which we have found of Persian 

Hermippus was a writer whose attitude towards history was some- 
what credulous,‘ but it may well be that the statement about his 
setting forth of two million lines of Zoroaster indicates the existence 
of these writings in Greek by his time*®: the number may well be 
either a scribal error or an exaggeration. As for the idea of genuine 
translation, it is not likely. Apart from the Septuagint there is very 
little genuine translation into Greek, but only adaptation. The 
Tefnut story is translated freely,* the ‘ Potter’s Oracle’ may be a 
translation as it claims to be,’ and I would remark that Ecphantus 

1 Note xxviii. 86 “‘innocentiores ex his.” For this mode of quotation cf. 
my Sallustius, xxxviii. 

2 “ Democritus ... narrat ...magos Parthorumque reges hac herba uti ad 
uota suscipienda.” For this work cf. Wellmann, Die ®vo.xd des Bolos Demokritos, 
i. (Abh. Preuss. Akad., 1928, vii.). Ostanes was the supposed teacher of Demo- 
critus; cf. Diels, Vorsokratiker, ii. p. 130. In the same way Pliny seems to have 
received Chaldaean theories of the universe through Epigenes, whom he perhaps 
knew from Posidonius (W. Kroll, Hermes, lxv. pp. 1 ff.). 

3 Ursprung, ii. p. 93. An interesting indication of knowledge of Persian 
terminology is a gloss in Hesychius: Aevas- rovs axdxous (kaxods Bétticher) Aeovs 

4 Cf. F. E. Adcock, Camb. Hist. Journ. ii. p. 106, on the part which Her- 
mippus seems to have played in falsifying tradition concerning the early Greek 
lawgivers. Diels, Doxographi, p. 151, suggests that H. acted in good faith. 

5 It does not seem to me quite safe to conclude from Pliny, as has been done, 
that these books were in the Alexandrian library, though the stichometric 
indication of their total bulk perhaps points to a library. Lzxplanauit is 
ambiguous: probably it means ‘ gave a full statement of contents of.’ 

® Reitzenstein-Crénert-Spiegelberg, Sitzwngsber. Heidelb. Akad. 1923, ii. Cf. 
the Greek acrostic poem with a corresponding Demotic poem of Moschion 
(Revillout, Revue égyptologique, ii. pp. 274f.). Like our magic papyri and Coptic 
Gnostic books it is the product of a bilingual stratum. 

7 Journ. Hell. Stud. xlix. p. 114. 



ap. Porphyry, De abstinentia iv. 10, gives an adaptation of the 
Egyptian ‘ negative confession of the dead man’ *: what was then 
meant by adaptation is illustrated by P Oxy 1381. 174 f., a propos 
of a work on early Egyptian history. Such a claim could be utterly 
false, as we see from Corp. Herm. xvi., which pretends to be Egyptian 
but is Greek commonplace, or from Philo of Byblos: and it will be 
remembered that Plotinus himself detected one late fabrication under 
the name of Zoroaster.?. There was a popular demand for such 
literature, and in the third century B.c. the temptation to invent 
unknown works from the past was intensified by the existence of 
the Alexandrian Library and its desire for completeness.® 
Provisionally, we may guess that these supposedly Persian works 
had a Persian atmosphere and were in part at least based on 
Persian ideas and perhaps actual books, but that they were in no 
sense like Max Miiller’s Sacred Books of the East. Their scope was 
not limited to magic,* but it was by their magical content that they 

1 For that cf. G. Roeder, Urkunden zur Religion des alten Agypten, pp. 274. 
Similar material in Damascius on cosmogony. Joseph. C. Ap. i. 54 says of 
his Ant. Jud. éx rév iepdv ypaypdrwr nPupn even: 

2 Vita Plotini, 16. 

3 Cf. Galen xv. 105, xvi. 5 Kiihn. To this period Wellmann ascribes the 
Neopythagorean ’Id:opu7 of Orpheus (@vorxd des Bolos, i. 4). On the existence 
of Pythagoreanism in this century cf. H. Lewy, Sobria ebrietas (Beith. z. Zeit. neut. 
Wiss. ix.), p. 67. On its importance for magic cf. Journ. Egypt. Arch. xv. pp. 
227f. It should be remarked that the Essenes, who have often been thought to 
be influenced by Pythagoreanism, possessed writings of the ancients concerned 
with medicinal roots and properties of stones (\@wy ld.érnres, Josephus, B.J. 
ii. 136). These may well have been something like the ’Idé:o¢uv7, or even in 
some relation thereunto. (Some of the Essenes claimed the gift of prophecy : 
BiBros iepats kal deaddpos ayvelas Kal rpopnTrav awopbéypacw éutatdorprBovmevor, 
ib. 159.) See the article on the Essenes by Cumont, Comptes rendus de 
lV Académie des Inscriptions, 1930, pp. 99 ff. 

* Dion of Prusa quotes in Or. 36 a Persian tale relating to fiery destruction 
of the universe: his manner of quoting it may suggest that he came upon it 
casually and that it was not part of any sort of large collection of Persian 
material. Nigidius Figulus ap. Serv. in Hcl. iv. 10 (fr. lxvii. in Swoboda’s edition, 
p. 83), having quoted the Orphic doctrine of the four ages of the world presided 
over by Saturn, Jupiter, Neptune and Pluto, adds that some, like the Magi, 
say that there will be an age of Apollo (cf. J. Jiithner, Anzeiger der Akad. in 
Wien, 1925, pp. 170 f.). On this doctrine M. Cumont kindly allows me to refer 
to his forthcoming article in Rev. hist. rel. 1930. 

Ostanes certainly dealt with angelology, and perhaps exercised considerable 
influence on the development of ideas on this topic; cf. Cumont, Religions 
orientales*, pp. 279 f. Plut. De defectu oraculorum 10 refers to the theory of 
daimones as coming from the Magi or Orpheus, or some Egyptian or Phrygian. 
For the method of securing a happy passage to heaven in Arnobius ii. 62 cf. 
Journal Eg. Archaeol. xv. pp. 230 ff. 




most impressed popular imagination, which was then more prone 
than now to take a book or a statement at its face value, and that 
they helped to crystallize the idea of magic as a Persian thing. They 
had a long life.’ 

4, We have now seen the main lines of the development of the 
term udyos. In and after the Hellenistic period it has its two meanings, 
Persian fire-priest and magician or quack, and these meanings occur 
side by side. Thus Philo is fully aware of the character of the Persian 
Magi and of their paytx7) and is disposed to ennoble it, writing as he 
does at a time when for nearly three centuries it has been a current 
idea that various early Greek sages had learnt wisdom from Persian 
and Egyptian priests. At the same time, a page earlier he uses 
pidyos in the derived sense.? Apuleius also in his Apologia 26 sets the 
two senses side by side. The derived sense is much commoner. 
Magi appear in Tacitus on a footing with Chaldaei: they are credited 
with rites (sacra) and with ways of evoking the dead.* They are 
in fact professionals to whom the private person may turn in time 
of need. It has been shown earlier that the term now implies no 
nationality in particular; it is freely used in Egyptian magical 
texts, and Pliny can say peragratis Persidis Arabiae Aethiopiae 
Aegypti magis,* and Herodian tovs te mavraxydbev payous.® At the 
same time the name has a flavour of Eastern wisdom, as in Matth. 
ii. 1,6 and a magus might employ Persian dress and apparatus to 

1 In addition to material noted earlier cf. the Life of Severus, Patriarch of 
Antioch from 512 to 518, by Zacharias the Scholastic. He mentions a collection 
of magical books, some ascribed to Zoroaster, some to Ostanes, some to Manetho 
(Patrologia Orientalis, 11. i. 62, ed. Kugener; «bid. 70 f. we read of mountebanks 
who claimed to know from Magian and Persian books where Darius had hidden 
treasures ; tbid. 38 there is a reference to papers (xéprns) with invocations of 
pagan gods doubtless like the Néyo. of our magical papyri). 

2 Quod omnis probus liber, § 74; De specialibus legibus, iii. 100; ib. 93, in 
the ordinary sense. What he says, § 101, on the rapdxouma Tavrns, 8C. THs MAyLKAS, 
does not refer to Persia. So again Numenius ap. Euseb. Praep. evang. ix. 7 
(a reference which I owe to Mr. B.S. Page) speaks of Bpaypéves cal "Iovdato 
kal Mayo cal Alyirrio, but in another fragment (ib. ix. 8) uses wayeioar of 
Iannes and Iambres. 

3 Cf. Ann. xvi. 31, where Servilia, defending herself on the charge of having 
had recourse to such sacra for divinatory purposes, says “‘nullos impios deos, 
nullas deuotiones nec aliud infelicibus precibus inuocaui quam ut hunc optimum 
patrem tu, Caesar, uos patres seruaretis incolumem”’; Tibullus i. 2. 61 f. “‘nocte 
serena concidit ad magicos hostia pulla deos’”’; Virg. Hcl. 8. 68 “‘magicis ... 
sacris” ; Serv. ad Aen. iv. 493 ‘cum multa sacra Romani susciperent, semper 
magica damnarunt.” 

4 N.H. xxv. 13. iv. 12.3. 

§ Cf. Klostermann’s note. They come a7 dvaro\Gr, which is vague, and they 
are mentioned with respect. Matthew and Luke differ in their use of pdyos. 



give atmosphere.* In so far as he uses anything really taken from 
Persia, he uses it just as non-Christians used the name of Jesus in 
magic, or as one might imagine individual quacks in a non-Catholic 
country using adaptations of liturgical exorcisms, divorced from their 
background and combined with other elements seeking the aegis 
of the borrowed name. Such an analogy seems to me helpful for 
the understanding of the Mithraslhiturgie. 

ayes, 5. The writer of Acts describes Elymas as pdéyov ypevdo- 
mpodytynv. This is almost intentionally vague, and it is not quite 
safe to infer that Elymas was a professional vending spells or 
performing for profit rites intended to do harm or to influence the 
affections of others. pdyos in such a context may merely be used 
like yéns, humbug, of a practitioner of another and hostile religion. 
It is probable that in such a context you mean by pdyos a man 
who might perfectly well be doing mumbo-jumbo even if you have 
not actually found him in the act. 

It is not surprising to find a Jew in this context. Jewish exorcists 
appear in Acts xix. 13, where 7av mreptepyouevwr *lovdaiwy e€op- 
KioT@v is very contemptuous for a body including seven sons of a 
high priest, and classes them with the begging priests of the dea 
Syra or cheapjacks of any kind. Their spells, or spells which pur- 
ported to be theirs, enjoyed widespread authority, largely due no 
doubt to the mysterious nature of the Jewish race and its firm claim 
of intimate relationship to a powerful deity whose name was sur- 
rounded with a secrecy which accentuated its value, a deity moreover 
who was believed to have interfered and to be prepared to interfere 
cataclysmically with the course of history. The temptation to Jews 
to embrace this career may be inferred from various prohibiters : Rab 
of Babylon, who died in A.D. 297, said, ‘‘ He who learns a single word 
from a Magian is worthy of death, ”2 and the (possibly Jewish) list 
of prohibitions in Didache ii. 2 includes ot payevoets od hovevoets. 
Burkitt has drawn attention to an interesting Syriac homily On 

1 Cf. Lucian, Menippus 6f., which is of course localized at Babylon: 
so one of our supposed magical Magi in partibus may lie behind the picture, 
which may go back to Lucian’s model Menippus. We may remark that M. is 
ordered to carry a lyre (8), and with it calms Cerberus. Cf. the new fragment 
of Varro, possibly from his Menippean satire “Ovos \vpas, discussed Cl. Rev., 1927, 
pp. 169 ff., and 1929, pp. 60 f. 

2 Cited by Strack-Billerbeck, i. 76, on Matt. ii. 1. Cf. S. Krauss, Jewish 
Encyclopaedia, ii. p.406a, for Jewish contempt of the Magi. In general cf. L. Blau, 
Altjiidisches Zauberwesen, and Jewish Encyclopaedia, viii. p. 255; Schiirer, Gesch. 
jud. Volkes*, iii. pp. 407 ff.; C. C. McCown, The Testament of Solomon. Jewish 
magic is part of the whole interesting phenomenon of heretical Judaism in 
antiquity, on which cf. my Early Gentile Christianity, pp. 54 f.; H. Gressmann, 
Die orientalischen Religionen im hellenistisch-rémischen Zeitalter, pp. 116 ff., 168. 


Magicians, Enchanters and Diviners, in which the writer complains 
that his fellow-Christians, even the clergy, resorted to magicians and 
Jews. The text is ascribed in mss. to St. Ephraim, but assigned 
by Burkitt to Isaac of Antioch, who flourished in the first half of 
the fifth century of our era.* So later the legend of Theophilus, 
supposed, according to the version which Radermacher regards as 
the oldest, to have lived in the time of Heraclius, mentions a Jewish 
‘servant of the devil’ at Adana in Cilicia: it is to him that the 
Christian when tempted has recourse.” 

Elymas is not an ordinary professional vending curses and 
philtres, or if he is, he has other qualities commending him to Sergius 
Paulus. He is a man of religious potentiality who has some sort of 
vague position in the household of a great Roman. His status is not 
unlike that of the domestic philosophers whom men of rank kept, or 
of private chaplains later. Juvenal vi. gives a striking picture of a 
Jewess * who has secured a Roman lady’s confidence. That Elymas 
should stand in the position ascribed to him may to us appear 
strange: but in view of the religious curiosity which marked the 
period we need not regard the association as impossible : the intimate 
relation in which the astrologer Thrasyllus stood to Tiberius after 
his successful prophecy may serve as a further analogy.* Moreover, 

1 Proc. Soc. Bibl. Archaeol. xxiii. (1901), pp. 77 f.; T. J. Lamy’s St. 
Ephraem, ii. p. 400; A. Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, p. 65, 
accepts the identification as fairly near certain. ; 

2 rod diaBddou broupyds, L. Radermacher, Griechische Quellen zur Faustsage 
(Sitzungsber. Akad. Wien, 206, iv., 1927), p. 164. 23. 

3 Possibly a syncretistic Jewess, as Reitzenstein infers from 544 (Die hellenis- 
tischen Mysterienreligionem’, pp. 145 ff.) ; but Juvenal speaks loosely. On the ex- 
pulsion of Jews for proselytism from Rome in 139 B.o. cf. Reitzenstein, pp. 104 f. 

4 Cf. the Symposiac Questions of Plutarch with their discussions of such 
topics as Jewish religion, the question of Tiberius on the death of the great Pan 
(and Cl. Rev., 1923, pp. 164 f.), the interest of Felix in Paul’s preaching, Acts 
xxiv. 24 ff., and Apion’s work on the symbolism of Egyptian hieroglyphics. We 
may further note Nero’s sudden devotion to the statuette of an unknown deity 
(Suet. Nero, 56) and his initiation by Tiridates (Plin. N.H. xxx. 17 “‘magos secum 
adduxerat, magicis etiam cenis eum initiauerat’’), or again Statius, Silvae, 
m1. ii. 101 ff. (in giving to a friend good wishes for his departure to Egypt 
Statius remarks on the opportunities which he will have for learning the secrets _ 
of the country, not merely the old question of the Nile’s sources but also, 110, 
“cur inuida Memphis, curue Therapnaei lasciuiat ora Canopi, cur seruet Pharias 
Lethaeus ianitor aras, uilia cur magnos aequent animalia diuos; quae sibi prae- 
sternat uiuax altaria phoenix.”’ A propos of magnos, conventional as it is, we may 
observe that wéyas and wéyoros are as divine epithets particularly common in 
Graeco-Roman Egypt). Plin. Hp. v. 8. 4, explaining the appeal which history 
makes, says “sunt enim homines natura curiosi et quamlibet nuda rerum 
cognitione capiuntur, ut qui sermunculis etiam fabellispue ducantur.” Cf. 

The general 
character of 
the story. 


Sir William Ramsay has rightly reminded us of the train of comites 
who formed the suite of a governor’; we may remember the pictures 
which Juvenal and Lucian give us of the Greeks attendant on a great 
man, or again earlier the way in which Fulvius Nobilior took Ennius 
with him on the Aetolian war to celebrate his achievements in verse. 
A Roman governor might of course have other use for a magus. 
Josephus tells how Felix used Atomos, a Jew of Cyprian birth who 
pretended to be a Magus, to persuade Drusilla to leave her husband.? 
It has been suggested that Atomos and Etoimas (a strong variant 
here) are one and the same man: this is possible, but no more.° 

6. The story as a whole is of the type so common later of a 
demonstration by results of the superior merits of Christianity. 
The appeal to works as a proof of Messiahship and the gift and 
promise of supernatural powers to the disciples are made emphatically 
in the Gospels.* In the surrounding Hellenistic world the notion of a 
dispassionate supernatural being was confined to certain philosophers, 
and any enthusiastic devotee expected wonders from the object of 
his devotion, particularly in any conflict, and appealed to those 
wonders as reasons why the indifferent public around him should 
side with him. The Bacchae of Euripides illustrates this attitude. 
A striking instance is afforded by a Delian inscription of about 
200 B.c. recording how Apollonius, who like his father and grand- 
father before him was priest of Sarapis, had a vision saying that a 
Sarapeum must be built and the god must not live in hired places 
as before, and promising to find and to indicate the spot. The temple 
was built, and then legal proceedings were taken against the new 
religion. Sarapis said to Apollonius in a dream, We shall be victorious, 
and they were. A poem by Maiistas follows, celebrating the event. 

again the knowledge which Epictetus shows of Judaic use (i. 11. 12, 22. 4; 
ii. 9. 14). 

This curiosity is a factor of some importance in the spread of Christianity 
in the Gentile world. Christian propaganda in it must have depended largely 
on one individual bringing in another. It must have been so also with Mithraism, 
which, unlike the cults of Cybele and of the Egyptian deities, had no public 
ceremonies striking the imagination at once. 

To this periphery of interested persons and to Christian people eager to 
know the earlier history of the movement Luke and Acts were perhaps addressed. 
It is not likely that they were gettable through the booksellers of the time. 

1 St. Paul the Traveller, p.77. Cf. Friedlander, Sittengeschichte Roms’, i. 
p. 73, iv. pp. 56 ff., on the Emperor’s entourage. 

2 Ant. Iud. xx. 142. 

3 Literature in A. Wikenhauser’s Die Apostelgeschichte und thr Geschichtswert 
(Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen, viii. 3-5), p. 397. Wefind in Egypt domestic 
magicians, A. H. Gardiner, Proc. Soc. Bibl. Arch. xxxix. p. 32. 

4 Mt. xi. 4-6; Lk. vii. 21-22; John x. 41, xiv. 11; Lk. x. 17 ff. 


The miracle was that the accusers were struck dumb. “ And all 
the people in that hour marvelled at thy power, and thou didst bring 
great glory to thy servant in god-stablished Delos.’ * So again in 
the Alexandrine story of the dispute between the Jews and the 
Alexandrians before Trajan, the image of Sarapis sweated at the 
critical moment and there was much popular emotion in consequence. 
There were tumults in Rome, and many shouts were raised and many 
fled to the hills.’ 

The result of a miracle is wiotts, that is to say, those present or 
some of them take up an attitude of submissive reliance in the new 
dvvayts and its representatives.? Here the miracle takes the form 
of a judgement of God, like that which fell on Ananias and Sapphira, 
or that in the Delian story. The storyis, as E. Peterson has remarked,‘ 
one of heiliges Recht ; it includes the motif of the successful curse 
(like that of Theseus in the Hippolytus of Euripides). A Gottesurtedl 
(with a competitive nuance) occurs in the story of Korah, Dathan 
and Abiram in Numbers xvi., and of Elijah and the prophets of Baal 
in 1 Kings xviii. There may be in it some suggestion of the out- 
doing of the magician at his own game: blinding is one of the things 

1 OQ. Weinreich, Newe Urkunden zur Sarapis-Religion, pp. 31 ff. 

2 P Oxy 1242; cf. W. Weber, Hermes, pp. 50,70. On the typology of these 
stories cf. E. Peterson, EIZ OEOZ. In Christian legend they are extremely 
common, e.g. E. A. W. Budge, The Contendings of the Apostles, ii. p. 367. 

3 The Heroicus of Philostratus illustrates well the concept of wicris in the 
early third century 4.p. A Phoenician visits a vine-tender who believes himself 
to have a special relation to the hero Protesilaus, who visits him and looks after 
him. The Phoenician is inclined to disbelieve things mythical, having met 
no eye-witnesses of their reality (pnul yap drlorws diaxeioOar mpds Ta v0W5n), but 
is sympathetic, having said earlier cal yap av xaplfo.o Tots Hpwow, ei micTevwv 
dmé\Oouu. The vine-tender’s narratives convince him, and he says pera cod 
Aourdv, dumedoupye, TaTTW euauToy Kal ovdels rt Tots ToLovTas dmioryoce. (CE. 
Eitrem, Symbolae Osloenses, viii.) It is like the effect of an Apostolic sermon. 
For the psychology of religious conviction at the time we may compare Plin. 
Ep. vii. 27; P. asks whether phantasmata have objective existence and says 
that he is inclined to believe in them (1) from what he hears happened to 
Curtius Rufus, (2) from the story of Athenodorus, (3) from his freedman’s dream. 
So Athanasius in his Vita 8. Antonii, 77 (xxvi. 952 Migne) represents pagan 
philosophers as admitting to the Saint the superiority of 7 6.’ évepyeias miotis 
over 7) did Adywv dwrdderécs. 

4 Die Kirche, p. 19. <A similar Gottesurteil prophesied for the high-priest 
Ananias in Acts xxiii. 2 and invoked in 1 Cor. v. 5 and later formulas of ex- 
communication, in forms of ordeal, in Roman republican treaty-making by 
fetiales. It is described in an Epidaurian inscription, ’Apxaodoyixh "Eqnuepls, 
1918, p. 168, and in the so-called Lydian confession inscriptions ; it is threatened 
by Apollo’s prophet to a menacing unbeliever in the papyrus dialogue published 
by W. Schubart, Hermes, lv. pp. 188 ff. On the successful curse cf. G. L. 
Hendrickson, A.J.P. xlvi. pp. 101 ff. 


which his type claimed to be able to do,* and a demonstration of 
power before a personage in authority is also characteristic.2 But the 
form of the tale is not the common one of competitive thaumaturgy, 
and it does not end with the conversion and cure of the opponent 
as is frequent in such tales.* It is just possible, but this is a most 

1 F. LI. Griffith and H. Thompson, Demotic Magical Papyrus of London and 
Leiden, col. xxiv. 31. 

2 So Pachrates before Hadrian (Preisendanz, Pap. Graec. Mag. iv. 2445 ff.), 
Eleazar before Vespasian, his sons and officers (Josephus, Ant. Iud. vii. 46), and 
in a Syrian story Zoroaster before the king (R. Gottheil, Hssays Drisler, pp. 40f.). 

3 Of this we have Jewish instances (e.g. the contest between Moses and the 
Egyptian magician, the rivalry of Daniel and the Chaldaeans in dream inter- 
pretation), and a striking Egyptian instance in F. LI. Griffith, Stories of the High 
Priests of Memphis, pp. 173 ff. (the magicians of Ethiopia and of Egypt each in 
turn cause the king of the one country to be taken to the other and beaten). 
Parallel motifs are common, e.g. the Eastern idea of war as fought out partly 
between the gods of the two countries, the war of Ninus and Zoroaster fought 
out by magic (Arnobius i. 5), the divination of different Scythian diviners in 

Christian instances are plentiful, as for instance the legend of St. Peter and 
Simon Magus and tales discussed by me Journ. Theol. Stud. xxviii. pp. 414 f.; 
Budge, Monks of Kubla Khan, pp. 16f. In his Contendings, ii. pp. 495 ff., we 
have rival miracles of St. Peter and St. John on the one hand and St. Paul on the 
other. Ibid. p.580 we have rival healings by Artemis and St. Paul; pp. 654f.a 
spontaneous Gottesurteil, the priests who had not believed become blind, but in 
accordance with the common motif recover their sight, thanks to the Apostles. 

An interesting specimen of this type of tale occurs in the Historia A postolica 
ascribed to Abdias, vi. 7 ff. (Fabricius, Codex pseudepigraphus Nout Testamenti?, 
1. ii. 608 ff.). Christian missionaries, Simon and Jude, go to Persia to undo 
the work of two Magi, Zaroes and Arfaxat, heresiarchs who had fled from St. 
Matthew in Ethiopia. Their tenets as stated in 7 are clearly Manichee; at the 
same time they are credited with power to make men immobile or blind and to 
control snakes (vii. 1). In the king’s army there are “ sacrificatores et arioli et 
magi et incantatores qui per singulas mansiones sacrificantes daemoniis dabant 
responsa fallaciae suae.”” On the day on which the Apostles come they could 
give no oracle, but the daemon of a neighbouring city’s shrine tells them cum 
ingentt mugitu that the silence is due to Simon and Jude, ‘‘ qui tantam consecuti 
a Deo sunt uirtutem ut nullus nostrorum audeat illis praesentibus loqui.”” Then 
as a demonstration of power the Apostles allow the gods to speak again. The 
motif is probably borrowed from the story of St. Gregory Thaumaturgus: 
Greg. Nyss. Vita G. T’. in Migne P.G. xlvi. 913 p, cf. Journ. Hell. Stud. xlv. p. 95. 
The silencing of oracles is known elsewhere, e.g. Passio 8. Saturnini, 3, in 
Ruinart, Acta Martyrum?, 109 f., but this is more individual, and uncertain as 
is the date of Abdias it is probably later than the story of Gregory. (For making a 
pagan image speak cf. Budge, Contendings, ii. pp. 379 ff.) Itis improved on, since 
the prophecy which follows is wrong, and the Christians follow by foretelling 
what actually happens; the Magi are saved from death only by the entreaty 
of the Christians. There follows a further trial of strength. The Magi (here 
apparently Zaroes and Arfaxat in particular, ch, 13) cause the eloquent men 



tentative guess, to which I attach little weight, that the localization 
of the story in Cyprus derives additional point from the island’s 
reputation for magic. Pliny xxx. 11, having spoken of Persian magic 
as the oldest, passes to Jewish as “ many thousands of years sub- 
sequent to Zoroaster”? and adds tanto recentior est Cypria.’ If it 
really was a recent development, this may add point to the story. 

7. The story as it stands is one of the vivid scenes which the Conclusion. 
writer of the third Gospel and of Acts incorporates in his tale. It 
comes before us bald and unadorned, without any attempt to explain 
how Paul and Barnabas came before Sergius (as for instance by 
some allusion to the Cyprian connexions of Barnabas, or by the 
suggestion that the governor hearing of the new preaching wished 
to know of it, either in the interests of public order or from that 
religious curiosity which we have considered).*? The proconsul’s 
conversion, which would have been an event of the first importance, 
is just stated as though it were that of a washerwoman. And it 
has no consequences: “‘ No Church is said to have been founded 
at Paphos (contrast the names in xvii. 34); the change of Saul’s 
name here to Paul remains very odd, notwithstanding all the 
explanations given by commentators, and the names of the Magus 
are more than odd.” * The conclusion to which one is driven is that 

of the kingdom first to be silent, then to speak but be unable to move, then to 
be unable to see though their eyes are open. Later when they try to repeat 
this the Apostles prevent them. Next they bring serpents, which the Apostles 
cause to bite them, after which they prevent the bites from being mortal and 
cause them to heal after three days of suffering. 

The story is clearly late and confused, passing from Manichee missionaries 
to Persian priests, vi. 10. They have authority like that of the Magi at the 
Sassanid court ; but it would be unsafe to suppose that it rests on genuine know- 
ledge of conditions in Persia. In the Passio 8S. Symphorosae Hadrian has his 
magi et ariolt : the source of both stories is no doubt Daniel. Abdias shows no 
such local material as we find in the Actes des martyrs persans, edited by Delehaye 
in Patrologia Orientalis, ii. 4, or in the Syrian Acts of the Persian Martyrs. 

1 It may be remarked that Cyprus was well fitted to play this part. 
Egyptian, Phoenician and Greek influences had long blended in it. 

2 W. M. Ramsay, Paul the Traveller, p. 80, justly remarks that the Western 
addition in vs. 8, “For Sergius heard Barnabas and Saul very gladly,” is 
explanatory : it sophisticates the narrative. 

8 I quote a letter from Professor Burkitt. I need hardly say that the 
incoherence of this piece of tradition confirms the suggestion made by Schwartz, 
Nachr. Gétting. Gesell., 1907, pp. 271 f. (cf. Beginnings Vol. II. pp. 125 f. and 
Addit. Notes 16, 18, and 34), of a doublet in the story of Paul and Barnabas. 
It is possible, as Professor Lake suggests to me, that Elymas was, like Simon 
Magus, a person of far greater importance than the narrative suggests: we are 
in the dark, 

The Pauline 
allusions. | 


Luke has some definite tradition which he has incorporated tant 
bien que mal. So lame a story would not readily have been invented 
in Luke’s time. It is a Gottesurteil with the proconsul as background. 
In a later stage of development we should have heard of the con- 
version and cure of Elymas, and of the subsequent fortunes and 
martyrdom of Sergius: that became common form. 

Naive as the tale seems to us, it served three purposes. First, 
it represented the Roman authorities as very sympathetic at the 
outset of Paul’s active ministry in the Gentile world; secondly, 
it gave to Paul a Gottesurteil comparable with that declared by 
Peter on Ananias and Sapphira; thirdly, and this was perhaps 
important, it represented Christianity in very sharp contrast with 
magia. 'The claim of Christians to work miracles, coupled with the 
novelty of the movement, caused them to be classed with magi.’ 
Now Acts very definitely associates magia with a Jewish religious 
adventurer here, with others of the type in ch. xix., and with a 
time-serving temporary Christian convert in ch. viii.: and even he 
is represented as awed by the authority of the Apostles (vs. 24). 
The story, then, was useful; and probably neither Luke nor his 
audience felt the difficulties which strike us. 

Note XV. Tar Conversion or Paub AND THE EVENTS 

By Kirsopp LAKE 

The story of Paul’s conversion and the events immediately following 
is told in Acts ix. 1 ff., in xxii. 6 ff., in xxvi. 12 ff., is referred to in Gal. 
i. 13 ff, and probably in 2 Cor. xi. 32. 

Neither of the references in the Pauline epistles is a complete 
narrative. They do not give any account of the actual vision. But 
it is disconcerting to note to what an extent they mention episodes 
immediately following it which are partly ignored in Acts and partly 
inconsistent with its direct statements. It is therefore desirable to 
divide the whole subject into two sections: (i.) The account of the 

1 Cf. p. 182 earlier; Celsus ap. Origen, Contra Celsum, i. 38; O. Braun, 
Ausgewthlte Akten persischer Martyrer, pp. 64, 116; the Apostles regarded as 
sorcerers by unbelievers in Budge, Contendings, ii. pp. 106, 125, 143, 226, 362, 
422, 631; so Christ, ibid. p. 381 (as by Celsus ap. Orig. C.C. i. 68, cf. Klostermann 
on Mk. i. 23). We may note as remarkable, Braun, p. 203, of the Eucharist, “the 
flesh over which the magical prayers are recited,” a phrase put in the mouth 
of the Magi. A. Fridrichsen, Theology, xxii. (March 1931) pp. 122 ff., argues 
forcibly that the words uttered by expelled demons in the Gospels are intended 
to differentiate Jesus from common magicians. 


‘Vision’ described three times in Acts. (ii.) Paul’s experiences and 
conduct immediately after the vision, partially related both in Acts 
and in the Epistles. 

(i.) The Vision.—The three accounts of the vision in Acts are almost The Vision. 
identical; they clearly represent a single tradition, and probably a 
single source. The phraseology in all three is generally similar, but 
manifests Luke’s tendency slightly to vary his phrases when repeating 
the same story. Moreover this variation is much less marked in the 
important passages, which are generally repeated almost verbatim. 

The vision which changed Paul’s life is described in each of the Variations 

three passages in Acts, with only very slight verbal differences. They as 
all say that he was on the road to Damascus, that a bright light shone 
about him, and that a voice said, “Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me ?” 
Saul said, “Who art thou, Lord?” and was told, “I am Jesus, whom 
thou persecutest.” There are, however, some differences in the account 
of the minor circumstances. (a) In ix. 7 Paul’s companions heard the 
voice, but saw nothing; but in xxii. 9 they saw the light, but heard 
nothing. (b) In ix. 4 and xxii. 7 Paul fell to the ground, but his com- 
panions remained standing; but in xxvi. 14 they all fell to the ground. 
(c) In ix. 6 and xxii. 10 Jesus tells Paul to go to Damascus, where 
he will be told what to do; but in xxvi. 16 f. the actual commission of 
apostleship—ey® drootéhkAw oe—is given to Paul at the time of the 

Of these differences the first two are unimportant, and are such as 

are always found in any narrative which is repeated. Any lawyer 
knows that complete agreement between witnesses, or the exact repetition 
of the same story, is a sign of fabrication or of very careful preparation. 
The third is in a different category, and becomes very important when 
taken in connexion with the continuation of the narrative in ix. 9 ff. 
and xxii. 12 ff., and with the narrative in Gal. i. 13 ff., which present 
serious difficulty. 

According to Acts ix. Paul went at once to Damascus, where Ananias, Ananias of 
definitely described as a Christian, was commissioned by Jesus to heal ?@™"s°"* 
Paul’s blindness and to communicate to him the gift of the Spirit, 
which would fit him to be a witness to Jesus. Thus the first apostolic 
commission of Paul was given through Ananias. The same story is told 
in xxii. 12-16, but with minor differences. These make it appear that 
in xxii, 15 Ananias was announcing Paul’s call to apostleship rather 
than conferring anything, that baptism is regarded as cleansing from sin 
rather than as conferring the Spirit, and that the divine commission to 
preach to the Gentiles was given later to Paul himself in Jerusalem. 

But of this whole episode there is no trace at all in xxvi. The 
commission is given to Paul at the time of the vision, there is no story 
of his blindness or of Ananias, and Paul goes at once to Damascus and 
begins to preach. 

It might be thought that this difference is merely due to a natural Paul's 
compression of the narrative, but when Galatians is taken into account @uistions. 
the matter becomes more serious. Paul’s own words are that he is an 

sources for 


apostle—not from men—da’ dvOpeérwv—nor through a man—é’ 

_ dvOpérov (Gal. i. 1)—and “I assure you,” he says, “ brethren, that the 

gospel which is preached by me is not according to man, for I did not 
receive it from a man (rapa dvO@pérov), nor was I taught it, but through 
revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. i. 11-12), and “when it pleased God 
(who separated me from my mother’s womb, and called me through his 
grace) to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the 
Gentiles, immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood, nor did I 
go up to Jerusalem, but I went away to Arabia” (Gal. i, 15-17). 

By no possibility can these statements be reconciled with the story 
that Paul did not receive his commission directly from Jesus, who 
merely told him to go to Damascus to receive further instructions, which 
were communicated to him through a man—Ananias. If Paul had 
wished to contradict the story in Acts, could he have selected a better 
phrase than that which he employs when he says that he is an apostle 
‘neither from men nor through a man’? Or, on the other hand, could 
there have been a more deadly refutation of Paul’s claim that he did 
not ‘confer with flesh and blood’ than the quiet recitation of the fact 
that his baptism and instruction to be a ‘witness’ came | through 
Ananias ? 

It must be obvious that Paul would not so warmly have protested 
that his commission came directly from Jesus if there had been no 
stories of a different nature. As has been pointed out several times in 
Beginnings of Christianity, notably by Prof. Burkitt in Vol. II. pp. 106 ff., 

the difficulty of ‘source-criticism’ in Acts is that the parallel example | 

of the third gospel proves that Luke used sources, but also proves that 
he used them so skilfully that their reconstruction in any detail is 
hazardous, if not impossible. Undoubtedly this applies to the present 
problem. Certainly Luke may have been acquainted with at least 
two, and possibly three sources, each of which possibly contained the 
story of how Paul came to be a Christian. One of these sources was 
Paul himself; for whether the writer of Acts was or was not a companion 
of Paul, it cannot be doubted that he had access to the Pauline tradition. 
The second source was the tradition of Jerusalem, which the earlier 
chapters of Acts abundantly prove to have been well known to Luke. 
The third possible source is the tradition of Antioch. This is certain : 
but can we tell which, or how many of the three sources, Luke was 
actually following and how far he edited it ? 

No hypothesis is more than a guess, yet any has just as much 
probability as that which merely accepts the divergence of the narratives 
and argues that it is unimportant. It is at least not impossible that 
the story of Ananias was current in Jerusalem, and was used to justify 
the contention that Paul was, in spite of his protest, an apostle ‘from 
men and through a man. Unless human nature has markedly 
deteriorated, it is probable that the story was told in many forms, none 
quite correct ; but that the contention was made that Paul’s apostleship 
was secondary is clear from the warmth with which Paul denied it, and 
the story of Ananias, told with continual variation, has exactly the form 



which such a story would probably receive. The account in Acts xxvi., 
which approaches so much nearer to the narrative in Galatians, may 
be harmonized to the Pauline version. A further possibility, which 
from lack of evidence cannot be proved or refuted, is that Acts ix. and 
Acts xxii. are a combination of the Pauline and Jerusalem versions, due 
to the Church at Antioch rather than to Luke, nor was Luke necessarily 
wrong in preferring it. It is quite unnecessary to suppose that the 
story of Ananias is fiction: it is very probable that there was someone 
of that name who befriended Paul, shaken and half blind, when he 
staggered into Damascus, and that Jewish Christians believed that he 
had contributed far more to Paul’s understanding than Paul himself 
thought that he had done. 

Can we say any more about Ananias? Not with certainty. He Actual rdle 
may have been a refugee from Jerusalem, or an original disciple of *4™™* 
Jesus living in Damascus (see note on ix. 10); but special importance 
attaches to the points raised in the notes to ix. 10 and 17. Preuschen’s 
view is that chapter xxii. shows that there was originally a tradition 
according to which Ananias merely restored Paul’s sight, and that he 
was a pious Jew, not a Christian. This is possible, but unprovable and 
perhaps improbable, Certainly, however, chapters ix. and xxii. depict 
Ananias differently. In chapter ix. he speaks in the accents of an 
Hellenistic Christian of the Lucan type. He issent by ‘the Lord, Jesus’ ; 
and Paul is offered baptism in such a way that it is equated with the 
gift of the Spirit. In chapter xxii. he speaks as a Jewish Christian of 
the most primitive type. He is sent by ‘the God of our fathers,’ and 
Jesus is not described as the Lord or even as the Messiah, but as the 
‘righteous one.’ Baptism is merely the washing away of sin, and the 
Spirit is not mentioned. If these are two variants of the same tradition, 
one of them has been very much edited, and surely it is much more 
likely that chapter xxii. represents the source, and that chapter ix. is 
Luke’s Hellenizing revision. Certainty is unattainable, but to my own 
mind the most probable guess is that Ananias was an original Christian 
of the most primitive Jewish type, to whom Jesus was ‘the Righteous 
one.” He befriended and perhaps healed Paul, and in spite of Paul’s 
protests was claimed in Jerusalem as his converter. I think xxii. is 
nearer the source than is ix., which has been Hellenized by Luke. But, 
on the other hand, xxii. may be somewhat shorter than the original. 

Why did Luke omit the story of Ananias in chapter xxvi.? I think 
that the most probable solution is that though Luke was using funda- 
mentally the same source as he did in the earlier chapters, he omitted 
this episode either because he knew that Paul himself refused to accept 
it or from a correct and artistic sense that it was unnecessary in a 
speech before Herod-Agrippa. This seems more likely than any more 
complicated theory of a combination of sources. 

Thus the general result of a consideration of this part of the story 
is to suggest that the narrative of Paul’s conversion as given in Acts is 
probably a form of the story current in Jerusalem, rather than a perfect 
representation of the way in which Paul would have told the story. 

Paul’s move- 
ments after 
his con- 



The account 

in Acts. 


(ii.) The Events immediately following the Conversion,—There are 
much greater difficulties in the narrative of Paul’s procedure immediately 
after the conversion. Galatians says that he went away to Arabia and then 
returned to Damascus. Only after three years did he go to Jerusalem. 
Acts, on the other hand, says that he spent a few days in Damascus and 
then went straight to Jerusalem. 

The Arabia to which Paul refers is doubtless the kingdom of the 
Nabatean Arabs, at that time both powerful and prosperous. The 
daughter of its king Aretas had been the wife of Herod Antipas, who 
discarded her in favour of Herodias, and Aretas—after an interval of 
some years—had attacked Herod with such success that the Romans 
had been obliged to intervene.t At one time the Nabatean power had 
extended from Damascus to beyond the Gulf of Akaba, and the Sinai 
peninsula is full of inscriptions and graffiti in the peculiar Nabatean 
script. After the time of Pompey Damascus was lost, but the greater 
part of the country east of Peraea remained in Nabatean power. 

The exact limits of Nabatean Arabia in the first century cannot be 
defined with certainty, but Aretas probably controlled all the eastern 
part of Transjordania. The great cities of the Decapolis, such as 
Philadelphia and Gerasa, were of course not included, and Machaerus, 
east of the Dead Sea, was, according to Josephus,? the frontier fortress 
of Herod Antipas. But south and east of these cities Aretas was the 
dominant power. 

Why did Paul go to Nabatean Arabia? He is not explicit in 
Galatians ; but the general tenor of his words implies that he went 
in fulfilment of the commission which he had received to preach to the 
Gentiles. ‘‘ When it pleased him to reveal his Son in me that I might 
preach him among the Gentiles, immediately . . . I went to Arabia.” 
Why? The'obvious answer is, to obey the command and preach. The 
meaning is really quite plain, and has only been made obscure by the 
tendency of commentators to think that Arabia means Mt. Sinai and 
that Paul went there for rest and contemplation, because in Paul’s 
exegesis of the story of Hagar in Gal. iv. 25 it is said that Mt. Sinai is 
in Arabia, and there is a tendency to suppose that Paul never preached 
except where Acts says that he did. But the Epistles show how much 
Paul did which Acts does not record, and Mt, Sinai* was no more the 
dominant part of Arabia in the first century than it is to-day. 

Acts has a very different account. It says that Paul stayed in 
Damascus after his conversion, and preached in the synagogues that 
Jesus was the Son of God until the Jews threatened to kill him, when 
he went secretly to Jerusalem.‘ 

It is impossible to see any way of reconciling these two presentments 
of Paul’s movements. No one could ever suppose that the period of 

1 See Vol. I. pp. 16 ff. 
2 Antig. xviii. 5. 1, and see the footnote on p. 18 of Vol. I. 
3 It is of course by no means certain that the Biblical Sinai is the modern Sinai. 
* Acts ix. 20 ff. 


preaching in Damascus described in Acts ix. was extended over three 
years, No one could suppose that into this period there must be 
intercalated a visit to Arabia. Indeed, the natural interpretation of 
Gal. i. is even further from Acts. If we had only the epistle, is it not 
certain that we should assume that the conversion took place in 
Damascus, that Paul then immediately went, not to but away from 
Damascus, and only returned (iréorpefa, a word which surely implies 
that he was in Damascus when he was converted) to Damascus after 
a visit to Arabia? The general tenor of the passage certainly excludes 
the view that the immediate result of the conversion was a short but 
successful mission in Damascus, whence he went to Jerusalem. 

It is hard to resist the conclusion that Luke has omitted essential 
details, thus bringing together events which were really separate, and 
making it appear that Paul’s preaching in Damascus followed immedi- 
ately after his conversion instead of many months later. 

The next episode in the story is Paul’s escape from Damascus in a Paul's 
basket let down over the wall when he was endangered by a Jewish Scape from 
plot. The parallel account of this plot and Paul’s escape is given in 
2 Cor. xi. 32 f. The ‘basket’ incident, which is the spectacular part 
of each story, suggests that both refer to the same incident, but there 
is much difficulty in the details. 2 Cor. xi. 32 f. says: “In Damascus, 
the ethnarch of Aretas the king watched (éfpovper) the city of the 
Damascenes in order to capture me, and I was let down in a basket 
through a window in the wall, and I escaped from his hands.” On the 
basis of this passage it has often been suggested that at this time 
Damascus, which had belonged to the Nabateans before the time of 
Pompey, had again been given by Rome to Aretas. There is, however, 
no evidence in support of this view except the fact—which may at any 
moment cease to be one—that no Roman coins of the reigns of Caius 
and Claudius have been found in Damascus. They are extant for 
Tiberius and for Nero, but not for the intervening reigns. But the 
argument from silence is peculiarly dangerous when applied to Roman 
coins in an outlying corner of the Empire in the first century. There 
is absolutely no other evidence to support the theory that Damascus 
was subject to Aretas in the time of Paul. Moreover the exact wording 
of 2 Cor. xi. 32 f. surely suggests that Aretas did not control Damascus 
at this time. What Paul implies is that when he was in Damascus the 
ethnarch of Aretas watched the city in order to catch Paul if he came 
out ; dpovpeivy is a common word for besieging a city, though it can 
mean ‘to guard’ or ‘to garrison.’ The ethnarch may have been the 
representative of Aretas in the city, but I suspect that he was the 
Sheikh of the tribe of Nabateans who controlled the territory outside 
the walls. In any case he was obviously watching the gates of Damascus 
in order to catch Paul if he tried to get out. So long as Paul was 
in Damascus the ethnarch had no power to kidnap him. But Paul 
wanted to go elsewhere, presumably to Jerusalem, in order, as he says in 

1 See also Ed. Schwartz, Nachrichten d. k. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Gottingen, 1906, 
pp. 367 f. 

VOL. V 0 

The story 
in Acts. 



Galatians, to see Cephas. Hence he left by the unusual but simple 
method of a basket through the window, while the ethnarch watched 
the door. It is a perfectly convincing narrative. 

The story told in Acts has difficulties in itself and does not agree at 
all with 2 Corinthians. According to it the danger to Paul came from 
a Jewish plot, not from Arabian hostility. But the Jews were inside 
Damascus. Paul was frequenting their society daily. Why should 
they adopt the complicated tactics of waiting for him at the gate of 
the city? Moreover, why, if it were a Jewish plot, should Paul go 
straight to Jerusalem? It would be an exaggeration to say that the 
story is impossible, but it looks very much like an example of the 
tendency to give a Jewish basis to all hostility to Paul. In any case 
we really have to choose between Paul’s own version in 2 Corinthians 
and that in Acts. It is very improbable that there were two plots 
against him, and that he twice was let down in a basket. According 
to Acts, Paul escaped because the Jews inside Damascus wanted to kill 
him; according to Corinthians, because the Arabs outside Damascus 
were waiting for him; in each case they were looking for him to go 
by the gate, and therefore he employed an unusual route, but the 
difference between Jews inside and Arabs outside is considerable. It is 
not likely that Paul confused them, and equally unlikely that they had 
made common cause in a plot against him. 

Assuming that the account in 2 Corinthians is the true version, 
why were the Arabs hostile? The answer probably is that Paul had 
been preaching in Nabataean Arabia for more than a year, and Acts 
itself is witness that constituted authority rarely tolerated the Apostle 
for a longer time. Galatians in this case, when correctly interpreted, 
supplements and explains 2 Corinthians, 

After the escape from Damascus comes the first visit to Jerusalem. 
Here again Acts and Galatians agree that Paul went from Damascus 
to Jerusalem, though according to himself it was three years after his 
conversion, and according to Acts ‘some days’ after it. But there is 
a more serious discrepancy. According to Paul’s own account he went 
up to talk privately (that, surely, is the implication of toropfoat) with 
Peter. He saw no other apostle except James the Lord’s brother. He 
remained quite unknown to the Christians in Judaea, and it is absurd 
to argue that Judaea means ‘outside of Jerusalem.’ But a very different — 
story is told in Acts. He was at first suspected by the Christians, but 
Barnabas—whom Paul reckons among the apostles—took him and 
introduced him to the apostles, and he was then so far from remaining 
unknown that he preached with such vigour that he had to be taken 
out of the city and sent away to Tarsus in order to save his life from 
the hostility which he had aroused. 

All these discrepancies raise the same problem. They are of that 
simple and direct nature which admits of no compromise. Either we 
must take Paul’s version, or that of Acts. Paul was a principal in the 
story, and he was writing nearer the events. There can be no doubt 


that in general his version ought to be followed. The question remains, 
how far does this affect our confidence in Acts? It seems to me absurd 
to say that Acts does not suffer. When a witness has been put in the 
box and proves to be slightly wrong on almost every point, and very 
wrong on some, his evidence on other questions is to be treated with 
caution. Nevertheless those who have had most to do with witnesses 
are the most reluctant to define the exact limits which this caution 
ought to be given. Few ever give quite accurate testimony. Luke was 
collecting information ; he heard other stories besides Paul’s. If he got 
them confused, and sometimes did not follow Paul’s own account, it is not 

Would he have done so to such an extent if he had actually known 
Paul in the flesh? It seems to me doubtful, but not impossible. 

Note XVI. THe Apostotic Councin oF JERUSALEM} 
By Kirsorr Laxr 

The general problem of Acts xv. is so complicated that it can only The general 
be stated—it cannot be solved—by a process of analysis into smaller 7°?!°™ 

The reason for this is that here, almost for the only time in Acts, we 
really have a parallel narrative in a contemporary source, which may 
fairly be taken as playing a part analogous to that of Mark as compared 
with the gospel of Luke. It is analogous, however, not identical. For 
whereas Mark and Luke, both being gospels, belong to the same class of 
literature, Acts is history and Galatians is a controversial letter, two 
entirely different types of composition; moreover Mark is one of the 
sources of Luke, but there is no reason to suppose that Galatians was 
used by the writer of Acts (see Vol. II. p. 308). 

In Galatians i. 11-ii. 14 Paul gives a short account of his life from Gal. i. 11-ii. 
his conversion down either to the time when he went to Galatia or to + 
the time when he was writing. The first part of this account, i. 11-24, 
covers the period described in Acts ix. 1-30 and has been discussed 
in Additional Note 15. The second part, ii. 1-14, covers either the 
visit described in Acts xi. 27-30 and xii. 25 or that described in Acts 
xv. 1-35. 

A comparison between the epistle and these verses of Acts presents 
the following problems : 

(i.) What is the meaning of Galatians ii. 4, 5? 

(ii.) To which visit of Paul to Jerusalem, as described in Acts, does 
Galatians ii. really correspond ? 

1 This note was published in advance in the series of essays in honour of 
Israel Abrahams, under the title ‘The Council of Jerusalem Described in 
Acts xv.,’ Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams, New York, 1927, 
pp. 244-265. ; 

Gal. ii. 4f. 

The Western 

The textual 


(iii.) What is the meaning of Acts xv. in general and of the apostolic 
decrees in particular ? 

(iv.) The results of a comparison of Galatians ii. and Acts xv. 

(i.) What is the meaning of Galatians i. 4, 5? 

As so often happens in passages which present exegetical difficulties, 
the text is uncertain. The ordinary text found in all critical editions 
and in all translations of modern times is: dAN ovde Tiros 6 adv 
épot “EKAAnv dv jvayKkdoOn repitpnOjvar* dia S& Tos mapeuraKrovs 
PevdadéeA gous, oltwes mapernrAOov KatackoTnoar THy éXevOepiav pov 
nv €xopev ev Xpwrt@ Iyvod, iva nyas KatadovrAdcovew, ois odd mpds 
dpav eifapev TH brotayyH, iva 7 adAjnOea Tod edayyedlov Siopeivy mpds 
tyas. ‘But not even Titus who was with me, being a Greek, was 
compelled to be circumcised, but because of the false brethren privily 
brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have 
in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage, to whom we 
yielded in subjection, no! not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel 
might continue with you.” 

This text is found in all Greek mss. (including NB) except D, but 
not in the Old Latin version or in the Peshitto Syriac. It has in so 
far a claim to recognition that it has not merely much manuscript 
support, but provides a sentence so impossible to construe and difficult 
to explain that it would always invite alteration. 

The serious rival to this text is found in D, Irenaeus, Victorinus, 
Tertullian, Ambrosiaster, Primasius, and the Old Latin version: 4A 
ovdé Tiros . . . qvayxdoOn mrepitpnOjvar, dia S& Tots TapewdKrovs 
pevdadéAghous ... mpds wpayv cifapev TH trotayy iva  dAnGeva 
kTX,, omitting the words ois ovd¢ before rpds wpay. 

Intermediate stages between these two readings are found in Marcion, 
some Greek mss. known to Victorinus, and the Peshitto Syriac, who 
read ot6€ mpds @pav cigapev xrX., but without ofs, and in Jerome’s 
Commentary on Galatians, which implies ofs rpds @pav ei~apev without 
ovdé. The question is whether these stages represent emendations of the 
ordinary text or of that found in D, etc. Undoubtedly, Tertullian and 
Irenaeus represent an older type of text than anything found, as a whole, 
in our extant Mss., but in any given instance there is always the chance 
that they have a purely Western corruption, and that the great Mss. 
are right. The crucial point of the textual argument is to be found in 
the reading of the Peshitto and Marcion. This seems to be certainly an 
emendation of the one text or of the other. If we assume the text of 
the Mss. to have been the original, it is possible that Marcion and Rabbula 
(the maker of the Peshitto) struck out ofs to improve the grammar ; 
if we assume the text of Tertullian and Irenaeus, they may have inserted 
a negative in order to exclude the exegesis that Paul really did ‘ yield 
in subjection.’ 

It will be seen, therefore, that the real difficulty is not that the 
textual authorities are equally balanced, but that it is so difficult to see 
which of the variants is really the lectio ardua which explains the 


others. The question is, Which is more likely to have seemed ardua to 
early scribes, and so to have first invited alteration? Would they have 
been more shocked by the suggestion that Paul had circumcised Titus, or 
by an anacoluthon in his statement that he did not do so? 

It is, however, a curious fact that the chief importance of this 
textual puzzle is to show that from the beginning no one was quite sure 
what certain details in the passage meant. Nor is it appreciably easier 
_ with one text rather than another. Whether it means ‘“‘ Titus was not 
compelled, and remained uncircumcised” or “Titus was not compelled, 
but was circumcised as an act of grace” depends entirely on the emphasis 
read into the words. So also with the ordinary text, the choice between 
thinking that Paul meant that he yielded but not in subjection, or 
thinking that he meant that he did not yield at all, is entirely doubtful 
apart from emphasis on certain words. 

I am inclined to think that probability favours the text which omits 
the ois and the ovd<, and that Titus probably was circumcised. Panl is 
here defending himself against attack *: there is, therefore, a probability 
that the incidents with which he deals are those which his opponents 
had used to prove that he was subordinate to the Apostles at Jerusalem, 
Certainly this is the case with the first visit to Jerusalem, and with 
the interview with the Apostles on the second visit; clearly these were 
facts out of which Paul’s opponents had tried to make capital, and 
had thus forced him to give his own account of what had happened. If 
we might assume that this is also the case with the episode of Titus, it 
would follow that he had been circumcised, that Paul’s opponents had 
used this as an argument, and that Paul therefore found it necessary 
to explain that, though Titus had been circumcised, it was not under 
compulsion, but as an act of grace, perhaps of misplaced concession to 
false brethren, whose true character he did not at the time perceive. 

This is the more probable view, but it may be argued on the other 
hand, with fair plausibility, that the incident of Titus is only 
mentioned in order to prove that the interview at Jerusalem was not 
really a permanent submission, as could be seen from the fact that Titus 
(who was a Gentile) was not circumcised, in spite of the pressure 
exercised by the false brethren, to whom he yielded only on matters of 
temporary importance, not on those of principle. Nor is it possible to 
base a decision between these two lines of argument on our knowledge 
of what Paul is likely to have done. Paul argues in his Epistles against 
the necessity of circumcision, but on the other hand, if Acts be correct, 

1 T have taken the foregoing paragraphs from my Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, 
pp. 275 ff. 

2 For a fresh statement of this aspect of Paul’s defence in the epistle, 
including this verse, see J. H. Ropes, The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the 
Galatians, 1929. : 

® Or, if another text be followed, ‘‘to whom we did not yield even for 
a moment,” or with still another exegetical possibility, ‘‘to whom we did not 
yield even for a moment in any real subjection.” 

* See note on xvi. 3. 



he circumcised Timothy, who was, after all, a Greek, even though his 
mother was a Jewess, and we may safely say that no one after reading 
Galatians v. would ever have expected such a concession to Jewish feeling, 
though v. 11 (“If I preach circumcision, why am I persecuted ?”) may 
be taken as implying that in some way he had given rise to the state- 
ment that he did recommend circumcision. 

Thus the only possible summing up of the whole point seems to be 
that a verdict of ‘not proven’ ought to be returned. It is possible to 
make attractive statements in the spirit of an advocate for either side, 
but if a judicial attitude is to be observed no other verdict is conceivable. 
If, however, I were obliged to take sides, I should say that there is a 
balance of argument in favour of the view that Titus was circumcised. 

However this may be, the most important facts are also the clearest. 
The trouble began in Jerusalem, and it was concerned with the question 
of circumcision. Paul did not go up because of it, but it came upon 
him because of ‘ false brethren’ who had been brought in unawares when 
owing to revelation he was already there for another purpose, which he 
scarcely defines but suggests to have been the care of the poor.t More- 
over, the leaders were ultimately convinced that he was justified in the 
gospel which he was preaching among the Gentiles. Peter and the 
other ‘pillars’ recognized that he was the leader of the mission to the 
heathen, as Peter was of the mission to the Jews. No ‘terms’ are 
mentioned. It was, according to Galatians, an unconditional surrender 
to the Antiochian position. But not every one was convinced, and 
further trouble remained. Peter came down to Antioch, and so also 
did emissaries from James. These latter raised, not the question of 
circumcision, but the terms on which Jewish Christians might properly 
associate with Gentiles. The position of James was one of opposition to 
unconditional intercourse with Gentiles, and Peter and Barnabas, who, like 
Paul, had been freely mingling with them, were persuaded that James 
was right. 

It is the narrative which must be accepted as Paul’s own statement 
of the sequence of events. It is extremely unlikely that he is wrong in 
his account of the matter. On the other hand it is by no means impossible 
that Luke has foreshortened events, and combined narratives. Galatians, 
therefore, not Acts, gives the final verdict, and it is a radically bad 

1 Paul is not very explicit on the subject. That the object of his visit was 
the care of the poor is implied by Gal. ii. 10, but all that Paul emphasizes is that 
he went up by revelation, nct as a matter of obedience to the apostles in 
Jerusalem. It is from Acts xi., not from Galatians, that the ‘relief’ nature of 
his visit is to be gathered. The reverse is true of his final visit to Jerusalem. 
Acts says hardly anything about the ‘relief’ which Paul brought from Europe, 
but 1 and 2 Corinthians show that to take this to Jerusalem was one of his chief 
objects, and that he had been working for it for years, I think it is possible 
that the ‘relief’ element was really present on both occasions, and possibly its 
long-continued nature indicates that it was nut due—as Acts would suggest— 
merely to famine, but also to the ill-judged ‘communism’ which must have 
permanently impoverished the church in Jerusalem. 

—— — ee a SS. ee 


method which in any way tries to squeeze the Pauline statement into 
harmony with the Lucan. If the two accounts differ it is Paul and not 
Luke who must be followed. 

(ii.) To which visit of Paul to Jerusalem, as described in Acts, does Paul's 
Galatians it. really correspond ? Mes OR 

To this question three answers have been given, (a) By most of the () Rp aap 
older commentators it was held that Galatians ii. clearly corresponded to : 
Acts xv. The best statement of this theory is certainly that given es 
Lightfoot in his St. Paul's Epistle to the Galatians, pp. 123 f. He 
writes as follows: “The geography is the same. In both narratives the 
communications take place between Jerusalem and Antioch: in both the 
headquarters of the false brethren are at the former place, their machina- 
tions are carried on in the latter: in both the Gentile apostles go up 
to Jerusalem apparently from Antioch, and return thence to Antioch 
again. The time is the same, or at least not inconsistent. St. Paul 
places the events fifteen or sixteen years after his conversion: St. Luke’s 
narrative implies that they took place about the year 51.4. The persons 
are the same: Paul and Barnabas appear as the representatives of the 
Gentile churches, Cephas and James as the leaders of the circumcision. 
The agitators are similarly described in the two accounts: in the Acts, 
as converted Pharisees, who had imported their dogmas into the Christian 
Church ; in the Epistle, as false brethren who attempt to impose the 
bondage of the Law on the Gentile converts. The two apostles of the 
Gentiles are represented in both accounts as attended: ‘certain other 
Gentiles’ (€€ avr@v) are mentioned by St. Luke; Titus, a Gentile, is 
named by St. Paul. The subject of dispute is the same: the circumcision 
of the Gentile converts. The character of the conference is in general the 
same: a prolonged and hard-fought contest. The result is the same: 
the exemption of the Gentiles from the enactments of the Law, and the 
recognition of the apostolic commission of Paul and Barnabas by the 
leaders of the Jewish Church.” 

The strength of this position is in its affirmations. It certainly 
shows that there is so strong a resemblance between the circumstances - 
of these two visits to Jerusalem that it is incredible that they were 
repeated so exactly on another occasion. The suggestion that they were 
is made worse if Galatians ii. refers to another visit actually mentioned 
in Acts, for that would mean that the same controversy arose twice, that 
Luke described it on one occasion and Paul on the other. Therefore, 
since Lightfoot wrote, the majority of English critics have always agreed 
that Acts xv. and Galatians ii. refer to the same visit. 

The difficulty is not in this affirmation, but its application to the 
details of the story, for it entails conclusions which are very disturbing. 

1 Lightfoot explains in a footnote that ‘‘ this is calculated by a back reckon- 
ing of the time spent from the Apostolic Council to the appointment of Festus, 
the date of which is fixed independently at a.p. 60.” A modern writer would 
probably speak less certainly ; see Turner’s article on ‘Chronology’ in Hastings’ 
Dictionary of the Bible and Additional Note 34. 


If Galatians ii.= Acts xv., it was, according to the sequence of events 
given in Acts, Paul’s third visit to Jerusalem. He went there first soon 
after his conversion, a second time for the Antiochian mission to relieve 
the famine in Judaea, and Acts xv. is the third visit. But Paul’s own 
statement in Galatians is that the visit described in chapter ii. was only 
his second ; and he is emphatic on the point, because he is arguing that 
he was not and never had been subordinate to Jerusalem, and that the 
facts of his life show that he never had had an opportunity for being in 
such a position. He calls God to witness that he is not lying. Why 
should he have voluntarily weakened his position by omitting a visit to 
Jerusalem? The suggestion is incredible. 

This point had of course been seen by the Tiibingen school, but they 

had used it merely to discredit Luke. In England the belief was wide- 

spread that they had been fully answered, and no further serious attention 
was paid to them, except by a very few scholars who knew that the last 
word had not been said on the subject, but had not formulated any clear 
theory of their own. In Germany there were three parties—those who 
inherited the Tiibingen tradition and thought that Acts was quite 
untrustworthy, those who had inherited the opposite view and believed 
that somehow the discrepancy between Acts and Galatians could be 
reconciled, and a younger generation which had for the moment given 
up historical criticism in favour of Quellenkritik, and produced an endless 
series of theories as to the source of Acts. 

Lightfoot was, of course, fully aware of all that was going on in 
Germany. He was convinced that the Tiibingen school was wrong in 
its general presentation of history, and he held that Acts was more 
trustworthy than most of his German contemporaries admitted. 

His own solution of the difficulty was: “The answer is to be sought 
in the circumstances under which that visit was paid. The storm of 
persecution had broken over the Church of Jerusalem. One leading 
Apostle had been put to death; another rescued by a miracle had fled 
for his life. At this season of terror and confusion Paul and Barnabas 
arrived. It is probable that every Christian of rank had retired from 
the city. No mention is made of the Twelve; the salutations of the 
Gentile Apostles are received by ‘the Elders.’ They arrived charged 
with alms for the relief of the poor brethren of Judaea. Having deposited 
these in trustworthy hands, they would depart with all convenient speed. 
Any lengthened stay might endanger their lives. Nor, indeed, was there 
any motive for remaining. Even had St. Paul purposed holding con- 
ferences with the Apostles or the Church of the Circumcision, at this 
moment of dire distress it would have been impossible. Of this visit 
then, so brief and so hurried, he makes no mention here. His object 
is not to enumerate his journeys to Jerusalem, but to define his relations 
with the Twelve ; and on these relations it had no bearing.” But this 
explanation overlooks the fact that in Galatians Paul is clearing himself 
of the accusation that he is a disobedient subordinate of the apostles in 
Jerusalem by showing that on his visits to Jerusalem he never was 
subordinate to them. Surely it is inconceivable that he omitted a visit 

es i” 


which can scarcely have been unknown, especially if he could have said 
that the apostles were then absent. Nor is the picture of the apostles 
retiring to safety and leaving the Church to presbyters a very convincing 
suggestion, or consistent with Acts viii. 1. 

(6) A new suggestion was made in 1895 by Sir William Ramsay, () Ramsay's 
who recognized that Lightfoot’s argument was weak when it minimized ‘°”’ 
the ‘ famine relief’ visit. He therefore took the obvious step of identifying 
the second visit in Acts with the second visit in Galatians. He thought 
that Acts said nothing about the details of the visit because it had been 
held in private. 

At the time when I first read his book Ramsay’s view, though 
not widely accepted, seemed to me the best way out of the difficulty. 
I followed it up in my Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, and so did Mr. C. W. 
Emmet in his Epistle to the Galatians and in Vol. II. It has also been 
recently accepted by Prof. F. C. Burkitt in his Christian Beginnings and 
by Canon Streeter. Nevertheless the theory never won general approval ; 
and rightly so. The obvious difficulty is that if the whole question had 
really been settled beforehand by the apostles at the second visit to 
Jerusalem, why did they pretend to argue it all de novo at the meeting 
described in Acts xv., as though they had never discussed, much less 
settled, the problem ? 

Nevertheless, just as there is convincing power in Lightfoot’s view, (© 
that Galatians ii. must mean the same visit as Acts xv., so also is there in Schwart’s 
Ramsay’s contention that Galatians ii. must refer to Paul’s second visit. 

The problem is thus an impasse if we take Acts as it stands. 

(c) The succession of critics whose work has pointed to the only 
possible solution is Weizsicker, McGiffert, and Schwartz. In varying 
ways they all used the same key to solve the riddle. Acts xi. (the 
famine relief visit) and Acts xv. are both descriptions of the visit 
referred to in Galatians ii. derived from different sources and described 
from different points of view. 

The clear advantages of this theory are: 

(1) It is based on the known fact that Luke used ‘sources, and that 

in his gospel he repeats, on occasion, the same saying from Mark and 
from another source which is found to have been used by Matthew also. 
Thus the saying “There is nothing hid that shall not be revealed” 
comes in Luke viii. 17 and in Luke xii. 2. The first passage is from 
Mark, the second from Q (?) (cf. Matt. x. 26). A glance at the third 
appendix to Huck’s Synopse shows at least seven other instances of 
this tendency to double a saying because it was found in more than 
one source. Nor is there anything strange in this. The characteristic 
is found in Matthew, and in general in almost all writers of this period 
who made use of ‘ sources,’ 

1 See Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, pp. 48 ff. Prof. Burkitt, as I 
have learnt by correspondence with him, is impressed by this point and thinks 
that the fact that in Galatians Paul had a private interview with the Apostles, 
but in Acts a public discussion, invalidates Lightfoot’s view that Galatians ii. 
refers to the same episode as Acts xv. 


(2) It is the only theory which can do justice to the arguments 
set out by Lightfoot in favour of identifying Acts xv. and Galatians ii. 
without doing violence to the fact that Paul says that Galatians ii. was 
his second visit to Jerusalem. The difficulty of reconciling these points 
disappears when it is seen that the two stories refer to the same visit, 
described from different points of view. 

It has not, I think, found so much favour as it might have done, 
because it is bound up with Schwartz’s theory of chronology (see 
Additional Notes 18 and 34) and with his belief that John the son of 
Zebedee was put to death together with his brother James, 

It is, however, not necessary to accept these theories because we 
hold that Acts xv. is a different version of the visit to Jerusalem 
mentioned in Acts xi. 34, so that both these accounts are parallel to 
Galatians ii. and both are really Paul’s second visit. 

The test of The most exacting test which can be applied to any reconstruction 

order. of an historical narrative is whether it produces a result in accordance 
with the oldest tradition, especially as to the order of events. Two 
narratives may reasonably differ as to the importance or even the 
character of various episodes, but if they are of first-rate value they 
will not often differ as to the order in which the events happened. 
Now it is on this question of order that Acts xv. and Galatians differ 
most in the present arrangement of the narrative, but this point has 
sometimes been overlooked in the interest of the central difficulty of 
whether the visit was Paul’s second or third. 

6 According to Galatians Paul went to Jerusalem by revelation, not 

‘because of any controversy in the Church, and he hints that the visit 
was concerned with the care of the poor. While in Jerusalem he was 
attacked by ‘false brethren’; there was a discussion, but he won the 
day; then on his return to Antioch the difficulties again arose, 
because emissaries from Jerusalem reopened the question, and persuaded 
Peter and Barnabas to desert the Hellenistic side which they had 
hitherto adopted. 

It would, however, seem that the problem was not quite the 
same as it had been. In Jerusalem the question seems to have been 
that of circumcision. It is true that this is scarcely stated in so many 
words, but it certainly seems to be implied by the story of Titus. But 
in Antioch the question was the further one of the conditions of 
intercourse between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Paul, Barnabas, 
and Peter had mingled freely with Gentiles, and joined in their meals, 
But the emissaries of James held that this was improper. There is 
no suggestion that they were claiming that the Gentiles should be 
circumcised, but they did insist on a social barrier between circumcised 
and uncircumcised. Paul did not yield on this point, but Barnabas 
and Peter gave way. 

Acts, as it stands, gives a different sequence of events. According 
to it the trouble arose in Antioch, was carried to Jerusalem by Paul 
and Barnabas, who went there for that express purpose, and, partly 
by them but still more by Peter, the Church was persuaded of the 


essential rightness of the Antiochian position. But this settlement 
was accompanied by the imposition of three (or four) requirements, 
which from their nature seem to be intended to fix the conditions of 
intercourse between Jewish and Gentile Christians. They would be 
in place as the solution of the controversy, which according to Galatians 
arose in Antioch between Peter and Paul, but they scarcely fit into 
the struggle about circumcision, which according to both Galatians, 
and Acts was the subject of the meeting in Jerusalem. Nevertheless, 
taking Acts as it stands, these conditions seem to be intended as the — 
solution of the controversy about circumcision, There is nothing in 
Acts about a new dispute in Antioch either on circumcision or on the 
social intercourse of Jew and Gentile, for though Paul and Barnabas 
quarrelled on their return, it was about a personal matter. 

Thus, taking Acts as it stands, there is a serious difference between y / 
it and Galatians as to the order of events. This difficulty used to be 
solved most often by the rather violent method of supposing that Paul 
in Galatians ii. deserted the chronological order of events and that Peter’s 
visit to Antioch was earlier, not later, than the conference in Jerusalem. 
This is Zahn’s and Turner’s view.!'_ It is in itself highly improbable, and 
would hardly have been suggested but for the apparent evidence of Acts 
that the trouble began in Antioch and was settled in Jerusalem. 

A far more plausible solution is provided by the distinction of 
sources suggested above. According to this the Antiochian tradition in 
Acts is represented by Acts xi. 27-30; xii. 25 =Gal. ii. 1 ff. ; Acts xv. 1f,; 
xv. 30 ff.=Gal. ii. 11 ff The possibility exists that the missionary 
journey in xiii.-xiv. comes from this source; Galatians, however, does 
not mention this journey, so prominent in Acts, partly because it was 
not germane to the argument, partly because the Galatians knew all about 
it, but it is hinted at as the natural result of the agreement reached 
in Jerusalem. It is, however, also possible that the journey is misplaced. 
Luke on the other hand omits the temporary defection of Peter, and 
ascribes the estrangement of Paul from Barnabas to a personal quarrel 
about Mark. The sequence of events, taking Galatians as our standard, 
with the sections of Acts divided according to their sources, is as follows : 

Galatians. Antioch source. Jer. source. 

1. Paul’s visit to Jerusalem. Gal. ii. 1-2. Acts xi. 27-30. oe 

2. The ‘Council’ of the Apostles. Gal. ii. 3-10. me Acts xv. 3-29. 

8. Paul’s return to Antioch. implied by ? Acts xii. 25. Acts xv. 30. 
Gal. ti: 11; 

4. Peter’s arrival in Antioch. Gal. ii. 11. ses 

5. The arrival of emissariesfrom Gal. ii. 12. Acts xv. 1-2. 

6. Aquarrel of Paulagainst Peter Gal. ii. 13-14. % Acts xv. 36 ff. 
and Barnabas. 

Possibly the mission to the Gentiles in Acts xiii.-xiv. should be inserted 
between 3 and 4, but it seems to me more probable that we should accept 

1 Article on ‘Chronology’ in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible. 




Schwartz’s view. It probably comes from a ‘ Barnabas-tradition,’ is mis- 
placed and should come after 6 (see Additional Note 34). 

If we accept this reconstruction the order of events is the same in 
the Antiochian source of Acts as in Galatians—a visit to Jerusalem, a 
meeting with the apostles, a return to Antioch, and a quarrel in 
Antioch, instigated by emissaries from Jerusalem who influenced (Peter 
and) Barnabas. The order of events is thus exactly the same in both 

documents. The only difference is that the dispute in Antioch is 

represented in Acts as being about circumcision and the Law, instead 

/¢ of about social intercourse. * 

The result of the editorial manipulation of the sources was that 
Luke inserted the narrative of events, as he had heard them from the 
side of Jerusalem, into the Antiochian tradition, in the description of 
the result of the trouble in Antioch,-so that the defection of Barnabas 
is disconnected from the story of the Jewish emissaries. Thus xv. 3-35 
gives the Jerusalem story of what happened when Paul and Barnabas 
went up to Jerusalem, as the Antiochian source also relates in xi. 27 ff. 
It is impossible to say whether this tradition reached Luke in a written 
form or not, but it clearly reflects the views of Jerusalem rather than 
of Antioch. It also really agrees with the other evidence in that it too, 
like Galatians and the Antiochian source, when read by itself, makes the 
controversy begin in Jerusalem. 

To fit this story into the Antiochian frame Luke had to add some 
editorial sentences, which made the Jerusalem narrative appear the 
story of another incident, and forced xv. 1—the coming of emissaries 
from Jerusalem—into connexion with the Circumcision controversy 
instead of with the Intercourse controversy. He thus produced the very 
unconvincing story of a controversy which began in Antioch, and was then 
removed to Jerusalem by representatives of the Antiochian mission, 
who, however, said nothing about the controversy which took them to 
Jerusalem, until it was actually forced on their attention. 

He also introduced into the narrative of the discussion in Jerusalem 
decrees which have prima facie more to do with the subject of social 
intercourse, but the exact importance of this point will be more con- 
veniently discussed a little later (see pp. 210 ff.). 

(iii.) The meaning of Acts xv. in general and of the apostolic decrees 
in particular. 

Reading Acts xv. as a connected narrative, and merely looking for 
the general meaning of the decrees, it is clear that the meaning of 
Luke was that they represent the minimum of the Law which was 
to be required from Gentile Christians in lieu of circumcision, The 
difficulty of accepting this view is that it seems so inconsistent with 
Paul’s position, as stated in Galatians and Romans, that it is almost 
incredible that he would have accepted such a compromise. Moreover, 

1 This statement would not be accepted by Prof. Burkitt or by many other 

authorities. The most persuasive statement of their case seems to me to be 
Burkitt’s Christian Beginnings, pp. 108-134. He argues that Paul’s objection 



closer investigation into the wording of the decrees confirms this doubt, 
and suggests that the decrees were concerned with the problem of social 
intercourse between Jews and Gentiles in the Christian Church, not with 
the problem of circumcision. 

The apostolic decrees forbid three things, eidwAd@vra, ata, and 

(a) EiéwAdOura is the Jewish equivalent of the ordinary Greek 
Ocd0uta? or iepdOura. But from 1 Cor. viii. it seems that «iSwAdOuTa 
might be used in a wider or in a narrower sense. In the narrow sense 
it would imply actual participation in a sacrificial meal. We are 
naturally inclined to look on these meals as solemn religious services. 
Some of them no doubt were; but others probably resembled a dinner- 
party more closely than a church service. It was the custom to 
issue invitations to dinner in the temple, and the fiction was that the 
god was himself the host. For instance, Pap Oxy i. 110 says: épwrd 
oe Xatpypwv Seurvpoae eis Kdelvyv (kAivyv) Tod Kupiov Lapdaridos 
év TH LVapareiw avpiov aris eotiv ié, dd pas O'S In the wider 
sense the greater part of the meat sold in the shops was ‘ offered to idols,’ 
as the animal from which it was taken had usually been consecrated 
to some god, even if it were only by the ceremonial burning of a 
few hairs. Thus, in this strict sense, to avoid eating things offered 
to idols was difficult, if not impossible. It would, however, appear 
that it was not quite impossible, for Paul implies that by making 
inquiry the Corinthians might be able to avoid such meat. 

Its meaning in Acts is defined by vs. 20 as Ta dAuryipata Tov 
ei6HAwv, which cannot be narrowed down to the actual participation 
in a sacrifice, or even to the eating of sacrificed meat,—it means idolatry, 
described by that part of it which was most prominent and least easy 
to avoid. 

to ‘Law’ was only when it was regarded as the necessary basis of a right 
relation between God and Man—not when it was the basis of relation between 
human beings. Moreover the Epistles show that the decrees, thus interpreted, 
would have been agreeable to Paul. All this is quite true, except that the 
omission of any reference to afua (I doubt whether the vegetarians of Romans 
really cover this point) seems more important to me than to Burkitt. But the 
point which he seems to me to pass over far too lightly is that Acts appears to 
regard the decrees as a substitute for the Law. In this sense I feel sure that 
Paul would never have accepted them. If I understand him fully Burkitt and 
I agree that the decrees are in fact social regulations. As such Paul might have 
accepted them, but Acts, at least, to me shows that Luke regarded them as the 
end of the controversy about circumcision, not about social intercourse. 

1 For a discussion of the text, and the reason for saying ‘three’ rather than 
‘four,’ see Vol. III. pp. 265 ff. 

2 From Phrynichus, Eeloga, p. 159 (Lobeck’s edition), it would appear that 
6eb0ura was the older name. There is a good note on these words by J. Weiss 
in Meyer’s Kommentar on 1 Cor. viii. 1. 

3 For further examples see Lietzmann’s note on Kulimahle on pp. 50 f. of the 
2nd edition of the commentary on 1 Cor. in his Handbuch. 





(6) Afua might mean murder, and it has often been so interpreted. 
But murder, unlike idolatry, was not a common practice difficult to avoid, 
and it seems unlikely to be intended (but see p. 209). It may refer to the 
Jewish objection to blood as a form of food, and mvixrdv be a correct 
gloss on its meaning. This was based on Leviticus vii. 26, which in 
Leviticus xvii. 10 was specially extended to cover the ‘stranger living 
in Israel’: “ Whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the 
strangers that sojourn among you, that eateth any manner of blood, I 
will even set my face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut 
him off from among his people. For the life of the flesh is in the blood.” 
The later Judaism always devised all manner of rules to safeguard the 
possibility of eating blood, especially by ordering that animals must be 
killed by effusion of blood only, and there must be no possibility of their 
death being hastened by any other means, such as strangulation. Thus 
the ‘things strangled’ of the Neutral text is only another way of 
expressing the command? to keep from blood. A third alternative 
view is that ‘blood’ is here used with reference to sacrifice, and is 
merely an instance of the contamination incurred by joining in idolatrous 
worship. (See Strack, ii. pp. 730-739.) 

(c) Ilopveéa. might mean fornication in a general sense; but it may 
equally mean ‘ marriage within the forbidden degrees,’ which the rabbis 
described as ‘forbidden for ropveia.’ So also in Numbers xxv. 1f. the 
context makes it plain that the wopveia of the Israelites was marriage 
with the women of Midian (cf. Apoc. ii. 20). (See Strack, ii. pp. 729 f.) 

Once more it has been suggested that zopveia, like <iSwAd@uTa and 
aia, is merely another example of the contamination of idolatry, so that 
the three parts of the decree are really a single command to avoid heathen 
worship, made emphatic by mentioning its three most prominent features. 
It is undoubtedly true that a sexual metaphor is often adopted in the 
Old Testament to describe the worship of false gods. It is also true that 
religious prostitution was an integral part of some if not all oriental 
cults. On the other hand, ropveia is often used in the Pauline epistles, 
and always in the ordinary sense. Is it probable that the word is used 
here of religious prostitution with no hint that it is being given this 
special sense ? 

Each of the words is therefore capable of more than one shade of 
meaning, and three conceivable interpretations can be suggested for the 
decrees as a whole. (i.) They may be a food law; (ii) they may be a 
command to avoid heathen worship, expressed by reference to its three 
salient features; (iii.) they may be a ‘moral law’ to avoid three notable 
sins. But no one of these interpretations (and I do not know of any 
fourth possibility) can be adopted without straining the meaning of one 
of the three commands, or otherwise raising difficulties. A food law is 
an inappropriate setting for ropveéa; a command to avoid idolatry repre- 
sented by its three salient features is more consistent with the language 
of the commands, but the use of zopveéa in this special sense is a little 

1 See Strack, ii. pp. 730 ff. 


unusual, and it is a serious difficulty that none of the early Christian 
writers interpreted the decrees in this way; a moral law seems at first 
less open to objection, for it was the popular view of the early Christian 
writers of the West, but eidwAdOura is after all not really a synonym for 
eiSwAoAartpeia, and ‘eating sacrifices’ might be thought to be almost— 
not quite—as out of place in a ‘moral law’ as zopveia is in a food law. 

But the question whether these regulations were a ‘food law’ or a Food law 
‘moral law’ presents a somewhat wrong antithesis. Assuming that {™¢™™! 
eiowAdOuTa means principally food offered to idols, and afua means food 
containing blood, it would still not be fair to call this a food law in the 
sense in which the ordinary man would now understand the phrase. 
An exact parallel is to be found in American law, which forbids the 
making of wine; that is a food law, but, in the minds of those who 
assent to it, its justification is that it is wrong to touch alcohol. It is 
the ‘wrongness,’ not the ‘food,’ which is forbidden ; and that was exactly 
the attitude of the Jews towards the use of blood as food. There was 
therefore nothing inappropriate to their mind in putting ‘blood’ into 
the same category with idolatry and forbidden marriages, and making 
abstinence from it one of the conditions of intercourse between Jews and 
God-fearers. For, after all, the most hopeful line of approach to the 
subject is to remember always that the question which necessitated such 
rules can only have been that of the terms on which Gentiles who were 
Christian God-fearers? could meet with Christian Jews, and these again 
with Jews who were not Christian. There is at least a probability that 
the terms were the same as those on which God-fearers and Jews 
met when neither were Christian. The problem was for Christians only 
a passing one, for it was soon solved by the Synagogue, which turned 
out the Christians, and made it a matter of no practical importance 
whether a Christian was a Jew or a God-fearer, as the community of 
Jews would not associate with him in any case. But for the moment 
Jewish Christians still hoped to preserve the continuity of the institution, 
and ‘ terms’ were a practical necessity. 

There is unfortunately very little known about the Jewish rules as Jewish rules 
to intercourse with God-fearers, It must, however, be remembered that ae 
though God-fearers is a convenient phrase for us to use, it gives an undue 
clearness of definition (see Additional Note 8). God-fearers are not a 
special class recognized by Jewish rules, as the ‘sojourners’ were in ancient 
Israel or in the imaginary Israel of the Talmud ; the latter are the ‘ pious 
heathen’ who refrain from idolatry, and in the opinion of many Jews 
will have a share in the World to come. Possibly in the first century 
in Palestine there was a formulated statement of the amount of belief 
and conduct required to give a heathen the requisite degree of piety, 

1 See G. Resch, Das Aposteldekret. 

2 See pp. 84 ff. for the caution to be observed in the use of this word. 

® This problem was very soon replaced for the Christian community by the 
question of intercourse with friendly heathen ; but I do not know of any evidence 
to show that this question was ever dealt with formally, or that anyone ever 
suggested that the apostolic decrees should be applied to it. 

and the 



but there seems to be no proof that this was so. More probably, perhaps, 
popular opinion crystallized more or less unconsciously into a general 
belief that such and such a man (eg. Cornelius) was pious—that he 
‘feared God.’ 

Possibly the rules which were applied to the ‘sojourners ’—heathen 
living among Jews—may give some clues as to Jewish policy. This can 
be gleaned from Leviticus, which specifically prescribes certain rules for 
the ‘stranger within your gates.’ These resident heathen were obliged (i.) 
to abstain from offering sacrifice to strange gods (Lev. xvii. 7-9), (ii.) from 
blood (Lev. xvii. 10ff.), (iii.) from marriage within the forbidden degrees 
(Lev. xviii. 6-26), (iv.) from work on the Sabbath (Exod. xx. 10f.), and 
(v.) from eating leavened bread during the Passover week (Exod, xii. 18 f.). 
These regulations were expanded and ultimately codified by the Rabbis as 
the Seven Commands given to the sons of Noah,! and therefore binding 
on all mankind. They are set out in Sanhedrin 56 b: (i.) Obedience to 
law, (ii.) Abstinence from blasphemy, (iii.) Abstinence from idolatry, (iv.) 
Abstinence from marriage within the forbidden degrees, (v.) Abstinence 
from blood, (vi.) Abstinence from robbery, (vii.) Abstinence from meat 
cut from a living animal. 

The formulation of these rules is doubtless later than Acts, and their 
application to ‘sojourners’ is an historic fiction. At the time when they 
were drawn up the Jews had no land of their own. They were them- 
selves the ‘sojourners,’ and the rules in Sanhedrin for the treatment of 
strangers living in Jewish territory were devised with a view to a restored 
Israel rather than based strictly on the memory of the past, just as the 
tractate Middoth gives the measurements for a future temple rather than 
merely the tradition of the old one. Nevertheless the picture of the 
future was based on memory of the past. In the case of the temple the 
memory was real, and the rules as to sojourners, so far as they represent 
memory, may have been based on the treatment of God-fearers. At the 
time of Acts the formulation of this treatment was probably not so 
definite as is that of the ‘sojourners’ in the Sanhedrin, but there is 
sufficient resemblance between the apostolic decrees and the Noachian 
rules to make it possible that both represent the regulations which 
controlled the intercourse of Jews and God-fearers in the middle of the 
first century. 

It is however also possible that a somewhat different view obtained 
in the Diaspora. For the reconstruction of Jewish life in Greek cities 
outside Palestine we have distressingly little evidence, and we do not 
know how far the rules found in the Talmud ever obtained in the 
Diaspora in the first century. For the present purpose Philo gives no 
help. He inculcates the duty of kindness to the heathen who accept the 
true God, but it is never quite clear whether he is speaking of proselytes 
or God-fearers. More important are two striking passages in the Jewish 
part of the Oracula Sibyllina, in which the writer appeals to the heathen 
to mend their ways and seek salvation. 

1 According to one tradition six of these commands were given to Adam, 
and only the seventh was added in the time of Noah. 


(1) Or. Sib. iv. 24-84, 

bABioe avOpdrwv Keivor Kata yalav cova, 

dccor 5 orépEovor péyav Oedv evAoyéovres 

mplv mieev payéev te weroGdres edoeBinoww* 

ot vnods pev aravtas arapvjcovrat iddvres 

kat Bwpots, cixaia AiMwv adidptpara Kwopdy, 

aipacw eppixov peptarpeva Kat Ovoinoww 

tetparddwv' etdoovar & évds Oeotd cis peya Kddos 

otte hévov péEavres atrdabadrov odte kAoraiov 

Képdos darepwmrodgovtes, a 81) plyiora TérvKTa, 

ovd’ ap ex adAXotpin Koityn ré0ov aioxpov €xovrTes, 

ovd’ éx dpoevos UBpw dmrexOéa Te oTvyepiy Te. 

(2) Or. Sab. iv. 162-170. 

& péAcor, petderGe, Bpotoi, réde, nde pds opyrv 

ravtoinv aydynte Ocdv peyav, dAAG peEvTes 

ddicyava Kal oTovaxas dvipoxtacias Te Kal UBpeus 

ev rotapois Ao’ioacHe SArov Seyas devdoww,, 

xeipds T Extavboavtes és aiPepa tav mdpos epywv 

ovyyvopnv aireiobe Kai evdAoyiats doéBevav 

mukpav tAdokerGe Oeds Sioer perdvorav 

ovd oAgre’ ratoes 5 xdAov adi, Hvrep aravres 

evoeBinv repitipov evi dperiv aoKnonre. 
It is noteworthy that here in both passages, besides the recognition of 
the true God, abstention from idolatry and idolatrous sacrifices, murder, 
theft, and immorality is inculcated as necessary in the first passage, and 
from violence, murder, and immorality (vBprs) in the second. This is 
very similar to the apostolic decrees if they be interpreted as moral 
_ requirements. Of course the writer of the Oracula does not actually 
say that he was willing to associate with Gentiles who accepted his 
precepts, but he certainly indicates that God would receive them, and 
the greater may be supposed to include the less. 

(iv.) The results of a comparison between Galatians i. and Acts xv. 

The preceding discussion has rendered probable two conclusions. (i.) 
The conference in Jerusalem described in Galatians ii. was concerned with 
the question of circumcision, and the applicability of the Law to Gentile 
Christians. Luke regarded the decrees as the settlement of this issue. 
But there is nothing in the Pauline epistles to support this view. (ii.) 
The actual intention of the decrees, as established by the meaning of 
the words, and a consideration of contemporary Jewish thought, was to 
facilitate the social intercourse. of Jewish and Gentile Christians by 

1 Cognate to this, though not quite the same, is the decision of the Rabbis 
in Hadrian’s persecution that Jews might save their lives by other infractions 
of the Law, but not by idolatry, incest or other sexual offences, or by homicide 
(Sanhedrin 74a, Jer. Sanhedrin 21b, Jer. Shebi‘it 85a). See G. F. Moore, 
Judaism, vol. ii. p. 106, and the article on ‘Martyrdom’ in the Jewish Encyclo- 

VOL. V . P 

Acts and 

of Luke’s 


establishing rules of conduct for Gentiles which would remove the possibility 
of offence in Jewish circles. 

That is to say, the internal evidence of the decrees indicates that they, 
or the policy which they embody, belong to a different problem from 
that with which Luke has connected them. Moreover, Galatians clearly 
indicates that the controversy as to the conditions of social intercourse to 
which they really belong began in Antioch between Paul on the one 
side and Peter, Barnabas, and the representatives of James on the other 
side, after Paul, Peter, and James had come to an agreement in Paul’s 
favour as to the original controversy with regard to circumcision and 
the keeping of the Law. 

Assuming that the policy represented by the decrees is not a fiction, 
the critical problem is to form a reasonable hypothesis to explain why 
Luke represents as a ‘minimum-law’ requirement what was really the 
regulation of social intercourse. 

Three points are provided by the Epistles and Acts, and by the 
known course of the history of Christianity. 

(i) Owing to the speedy rejection of Christians from the Jewish 
society the question of social intercourse between Jewish and Gentile 
Christians soon ceased to be a real issue. Except in Palestine Jewish 
Christianity had either ceased to exist or was quite unimportant before 
A.D. 100. It is therefore not impossible that Luke may really never 
have come into personal contact with the situation to which the decrees 
belong, just as he probably never had come into personal contact with 
glossolalia, and so misunderstood and misrepresented the account of it 
which is behind Acts ii.4 

(ii.) Galatians ii. is clear evidence of Paul’s opinion that the controversy 
as to circumcision had been settled and that Peter and James agreed 
with him, but that the controversy as to social intercourse had not been 
settled, that James was on the other side from himself, and that Peter and 
Barnabas had gone over to James, 

(iii.) It is possible that attention should be paid to the fact that in 
Acts xxi, James mentions the decrees as a new thing, of which Paul was 
unaware. This might suggest that while Paul had been in Asia and 
Achaia the controversy had been settled. But though this is possible it 
would be unwise to press the point, for the speech of James is quite 
likely to be Lucan, and the passage can be explained as reminding Paul 
of what he knows, rather than as telling what he does not. Moreover, 
though the meaning is not quite clear, James seems to imply—as Luke 
would doubtless have intended—that the decrees were the minimum 
requirement from the Gentiles as a substitute for circumcision. 

Putting these three points together—and the third can really be 
omitted—the most probable hypothesis seems to be that Luke either knew 

_ of the decrees as an actual document, or at least of the policy which they 

represent, as the settlement of a controversy between Jewish and Gentile 
Christians. But he did not quite know what the exact controversy was. 
Finding, however, in his sources an account of a rather stormy meeting . 

1 See Additional Note 10. 


at Jerusalem, which ended in the abolition of circumcision for Gentile 
Christians, he assumed that the decrees were part of the decision of this 
meeting, fixing a ‘minimum-law’ requirement, and he told the story 
accordingly. In reality the decrees belong to the second controversy, 
and Paul had not been a party to them, though he had played a leading ,/ 
role in the previous and more important discussion as to circumcision, 

So much is reasonably clear, but were the decrees the end of the 
dispute at Antioch described in Gal. ii. 11, and do they really belong to 
the Church of Antioch rather than of Jerusalem? Were they accepted 
by Peter and Barnabas but not by Paul ? 

It is relatively unimportant to decide—and it is impossible to do so— Did the 
whether Luke actually had seen a definite letter of the apostles embodying APostles 
the decrees, It is, of course, possible that such decrees were sent out in letter? 
a circular letter. But there is no corroborative evidence, and, next to the 
insertion of speeches, the summarizing of a situation in a letter, supposed 
to have been addressed by one party to the other, was the favourite 
method of the writers of the period. Like many of the speeches in Acts 
this letter recapitulates what has been told in the narrative. This, and 
also the fact that other writers of the time appear to invent letters much as 
they do speeches for their heroes, suggest that this passage is Luke’s own 
composition. The style seems to justify such an origin. On this point 
Harnack and Weiss seem to have the better of the argument rather than 
Zahn, who thinks the language points to the source here used by Luke. 
(For the use of letters in ancient writers see Additional Note 32.) There- 
fore, though the point does not admit of certainty, I am doubtful if the 
text of Acts is that of the actual document. 

More important is the question whether, apart from the epistolary 
form, the ‘decrees’ really represent a rule which in the first century 
claimed apostolic authority and was issued from Jerusalem. 

Is there sufficient ground for believing in the existence of apostolic Apostolic 
authority at this period? Loisy is the most incisive critic of this belief, *““"°"™Y- 
and his researches into Acts have led him to think, and in turn are 
coloured by the opinion, that ‘apostolic’ authority is a fiction of the 
editor of Acts, unsupported by the source which he was using, and 
without foundation in history. I think that Loisy is wrong on this 
point, and that his and similar opinions are due to an erroneous inter- 

pretation of the Pauline epistles. 
In Galatians and in Corinthians Paul refers by implication to the 
question of apostolic authority. He rejects with great vigour all claims 
which involved his recognition of the superiority of the apostles in 
Jerusalem, But the same epistles prove that he believed in apostolic 
authority as such. His claim was not that the other apostles had no 
power, but that he had as much as they had, and that his was not 
derived from theirs. He also was in the habit of settling questions by 
letters. Moreover, Galatians certainly shows that there was a party 
which denied Paul’s apostolic authority, except as derived from 
Jerusalem. Thus the epistles themselves prove that apostolic authority 
was really claimed by some persons in the early Church, and that these 



persons were in Jerusalem is equally clear. Whether they regarded ‘ the 
Twelve’ or ‘ James’ as the chief holder of this authority is another question. 

The extension in tradition of the ‘James’ theory is found in the 
Clementines, and of the ‘ Twelve’ theory in the Epistola Apostolorwm and 
in the Apostolic Constitutions and its sources, such as the Didache and the 

Thus apart from the actual form of the document, which may be 
Lucan rather than historical, it is not improbable that a letter + was sent 
—either at the time of the conference or at some other—by the Church 
of Jerusalem to regulate the relations between Jewish and ‘ God-fearing’ 

By Kirsorr Lake 

The work of a missionary implies controversy, and his preaching 
necessarily takes the form of arguments with those whom he wishes to 
convert. His message is always the same, but because the positions of his 
hearers are different he is obliged to embark on different discussions. 

To reconstruct Paul’s preaching and the controversies which arose 
from it is the central theme of any book on Paul, but it belongs only to the 
periphery of one on Acts, and is called for only to show how far, or how little, 
Acts describes the essential facts. It must be remembered that Acts and 
the Epistles are both imperfect from the point of view of the historian. 
Acts is in the main a narrative of events, told not to convey information 
as the historian understands it, but to create belief. It gives only a brief 
summary of Paul’s preaching conveyed in the form of short speeches. The 
Epistles are in the main controversy combined with exhortation, and assume 
rather than describe the preaching which aroused opposition and called 
them forth. That is why all attempts to construct a system of Pauline 
doctrine—Paulinismus—from the Epistles is doomed to failure, and always 
produces something of which there is no trace in the Christian literature of 
the primitive Church, until perhaps? the time of Augustine, who with only 

1 Prof. Burkitt thinks that Rev. ii. 24 ff. is a direct reference to the decrees, 
This seems to me to claim toomuch. Ov Bddd\w é¢ duds dAdo Badpos xri. is not a 
very strange way of saying ‘I put no burden upon you except being faithful to 
the teaching you received.’ It means especially that they should avoid ‘Jezebel.’ 
It is of course true that the writer has previously said that ‘Jezebel’ had made 
the faithful ropveica: kal eldwdd0uTa dayetv. But this, as Westcott and Hort 
indicate, is a reference to Numbers xxv. 1 f. rather than to Acts xv. 20. It is 
probably intended metaphorically ; for whatever the Jezebel-sect was it taught 
Ta Bd0ea Zaravd, which sounds like a Gnostic cult. Still, if the point be pressed, 
I should not object to seeing a possible reference to the decrees in this passage. 

2 I do not think that Irenaeus is an exception. He is not an expounder of 
Pauline but of Johannine Christology. But it might be argued that Marcionism 
was an unsuccessful ‘ Paulinismus.’ 


slight exaggeration might be called the first creator of ‘ Paulinismus,’ for 
he first studied the Epistles as though they were a handbook of theology. 

To some extent, therefore, any reconstruction of Pauline teaching and 
controversies is fated to be subjective in method and doubtful in results, 
but a comparison of Acts and the Epistles makes it plain that in his career 
as a Christian missionary Paul was engaged in four great controversies. 
It is impossible to fill in the details of any one of the four, but their outlines 
can be sketched so as to throw light on the problem of the relative com- 
pleteness or incompleteness of the picture of Paul given in Acts. 

These four controversies were with the Jews, the Gentile heathen, the 
Jewish Christians, and the Gentile Christians. 

(i.) Paul’s Controversy with the Jews.—Before his conversion Paul had Controversy 
been engaged in controversy with Christians. We know nothing about “!"’°"* 
the details, but it is a reasonably safe surmise that it turned mainly on the 
claims set up by the disciples in Jerusaleom—that Jesus had risen from the 
dead and was the man appointed by God to come from heaven and be 
the judge of the living and the dead at the great day of the Lord. He can 
hardly have been much occupied in discussing the teaching of Jesus as to 
the Law, for that seems to have played but little part in the teaching of the 
disciples at this time. It is not even mentioned in Acts,' and there is no 
reference to it in the Pauline epistles. 

The vision on the road to Damascus meant that Paul reversed his 
judgement on this question. Henceforth Jesus was to him assuredly the 
Man who would come from heaven, and the Resurrection was the certain 
fact which gave Paul this assurance. Therefore in this controversy Paul 
simply changed sides. But it continued—Paul, now on the Christian side, 
arguing in favour of the belief that Jesus had ‘risen, the Jews denying it. 

It is probably true that to the Jews this belief in the Messiahship 
of Jesus was not so important as the later developments of Hellenistic 
Christianity. To them it doubtless mattered far less that a group of other- 
wise reasonably orthodox Jews were under a delusion about Jesus, than that 
Greek-speaking Jews such as Paul should inculcate disregard of the Law 
in the mind of those who might otherwise have been converts. But it was 
not so to Paul. To him the Resurrection was the necessary foundation 
of his whole position, and he felt that those who admitted the possibility 
of a resurrection ought to follow him. Thus as between Paul and the Jews 
the vital point of controversy, at least in his eyes, was the Resurrection. 

The Epistles give us no examples of Paul’s exposition of this position, The 
though undoubtedly 1 Cor. xv. 3-9, the list of the appearances of Jesus rae 
after the Resurrection, may be safely taken as a specimen of his argument. 

It is true that in 1 Corinthians it is used against Gentiles, not Jews, but that 
is because, in doubting the resurrection of Christians as the appointed 
method of immortality, the Corinthians compelled the repetition of an 
argument which had once convinced them though it had not convinced 
the Jews. There are many problems involved in this passage—what, for 
instance, is the proof from the Old Testament of a resurrection on the third 

1 In the case of Stephen the Temple not the Law is central. 

Acts xxiii. 


day (1 Cor. xv. 4), and why does the list of the appearances of the risen 
Jesus differ so greatly from that in the gospels ?—but it is at least clear that 
in Paul’s controversy about the Resurrection his main arguments were (a) 
the appearances of the risen Jesus, (b) the evidence of prophecy. The 
absence of any reference to the story of the ‘ empty tomb’ as told in the 
gospels is remarkable. It is difficult to think that Paul had never heard it ; 
possibly he felt that the failure of the women to find the body of the Lord 
was unimportant. (See K. Lake, The Historical Evidence for the Resurrection 
of Jesus Christ, pp. 190 ff., and P. Gardner-Smith, The Narratives of the 
Resurrection, pp. 10 ff.) 

In Acts the argument is given at some length in the speech to Agrippa IT. 
in xxvi. 2-23, and in the speech on the steps in xxii. 1-21, and more briefly 
in the speech, if it can be so called, to the Sanhedrin in xxiii. 6. In the 
two longer accounts the whole emphasis of the argument is on the personal 
experience of Paul which proved to him the fact of the Resurrection of Jesus. 
The shorter account is often rejected as unhistorical, but probably without 
sufficient reason (cf. Vol. II. pp. 295 f.). 

According to it Paul, finding himself in a dangerous position, created a 
diversion in his favour by calling out “‘ I am a Pharisee, a son of a Pharisee. 
I am on trial for the hope and resurrection of the dead.”’ That Paul said 
this is impugned on three counts: (a) it was no answer to thecharge brought 
against him; (b) it was untrue that he was tried for this reason ; (c) he 
had no right to say that he was a Pharisee. 

(a) It is indeed true that this was no legal defence to the accusation 
brought against him. To the accusation ‘ You brought foreigners into the 
Temple’ it is no answer to say ‘I believe in a resurrection.’ But neither 

- was Stephen’s speech an answer to the accusation brought against him, and, 

as was pointed out on p. 70, it is usual for reformers when arrested not to 
answer the charge, but to make a speech in favour of the reform they desire. 
Paul’s speech is psychologically correct, and therefore not historically im- 

(b) Similarly there is no real force in the contention that it was untrue 
for Paul to say that he was on trial ‘for the hope and resurrection of the 
dead.’ Technically and from the Jewish point of view this had nothing to 
do with it, but from Paul’s—and in considering the accuracy of the narrative 
nothing else matters—this was the whole question. If he had not believed 
that his preaching about Jesus was justified by the Pharisaic doctrine of a 
resurrection he would never have been on trial. Everything else was to 
him entirely secondary. Doubtless neither side could understand the other, 
and the Sanhedrin would have maintained that it had no official interest 
in Paul’s belief that Jesus was risen, provided he kept his Gentile friends 
out of the Temple. But Paul, in a spirit foreign to that of the lawyers, 
but well known to all leaders of forlorn hopes, insisted that the question 
of the Resurrection was central. The narrative on this point, at all events, 
is entirely convincing. 

(c) It is, however, urged that nothing can justify Paul for claiming to be 
a Pharisee. Why not? He believed, probably, that he was almost the only 
true Pharisee, because he alone drew the true conclusions from Pharisaic 


belief. Had he succeeded in persuading the Jews that he was right, every- 
one would now hold the same position and claim that Pauline doctrine was 
the natural development of Pharisaism. He merely did what all reformers 
have done before and since, he threw back the picture of what he-desired 
on to the institution in which he had been brought up, and claimed that 
that picture was the reality. Whether Paul was right or wrong in the 
abstract is an academic question. The point at issue is whether it is 
conceivable that he claimed to be a Pharisee, and on this point a com- 
parison with the acts of other reformers and all psychological probability 
support the story in Acts, and refute the critics who regard this episode 
as unhistorical. 

Besides this argument with the Jews, which was the reversal of that The Law. 
which he had carried on against the Christians before his conversion, 
Paul had also a long-drawn-out argument as to the validity of the Law. 
It is a question for the exegete of the Epistles to decide whether the 
large amount of evidence contained in Romans and Galatians as to 
Paul’s arguments belongs really to his controversy with the Jews or to 
that with Jewish Christians.1 It is, however, quite certain that the 
question of the Law must have constantly arisen in discussions between 
Paul and the Jews, and the arguments in the Epistles are undoubtedly 
those which he used against Jewish opponents, whether in the Synagogue 
or in the Church. 

Paul did not believe that the Law was in any way whatever binding 
on Gentile Christians. This conclusion is not modified in the least, 

1 There has been a steady change of opinion on this subject during the last 
hundred years. The Tibingen school held that there was a mission of Jewish 
Christians which everywhere opposed Paul, insisting on circumcision and the 
observance of the Law. It thought that a majority of Christians in the Roman 
Empire were Jewish by origin and that Jewish Christianity was one of the 
most important factors in the early Church. Later Weizsicker modified this 
theory, and supported the view that even in Rome and Galatia Gentile Christians 
may have been the majority. W. Liitgert in a series of monographs went 
further in minimizing the extent of Jewish Christianity. I followed him, so 
far as Corinth was concerned, in my Harlier Epistles of St. Paul, and recently 
J. H. Ropes has contributed in The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the 
Galatians a powerful argument against the existence of Jewish Christians or 
of a Jewish Christian mission in Galatia. 

Ropes holds that Jewish Christians, in the sense in which the word is usually 
employed, were never more than a rare phenomenon except in Palestine. 
Elsewhere the Christian Church was almost wholly made up of converted 
‘God-fearers’ who joined the Church rather than the Synagogue. The con- 
troversies internal to the Church were everywhere those of ‘ Gentile Christianity’ 
as illustrated by the Epistles to the Corinthians. So far as Romans and 
Galatians deal with the Law it is not because there was a Jewish-Christian 
mission, in rivalry to Paul, but because Paul wished to protect his converts 
from the efforts of Jewish teachers to persuade them to come over to the true 
Mother Church—the Synagogue—and accept whole-heartedly all the teaching 
of the Old Testament on which Paul himself relied for the proof of so much of 
his teaching. 


because he strongly urged in practice the same conduct as that produced 
by obedience to the Law. It was the fruit of the Spirit, not the work 
of the Law, and his central message in Galatians and Romans is that 
righteousness is obtained by a remodelling of man’s nature, brought 
about by faith on the part of man, and by the Spirit given by the 
favour (xdpis) of God. There are many details which are doubtful, 
especially the relation of this change of nature to baptism. Did Paul 
think that the Spirit was conveyed in baptism, or, in other words, that 
baptism was the form chosen by God to embody his favour? I think 
that he did, though the matter is doubtful, and probably incapable of 
proof, but I am sure that many of Paul’s converts thought so. But 
the really important point has often been overlooked in the heat of 
controversy about the relation between baptism and faith. Whether 
baptism was held to be the necessary form of the divine act of favour 
bestowing the Spirit may be left an open question, nor is it necessary to 
have a final definition of ‘righteousness’ or of ‘faith. The central 
point is that Paul clearly thought that a real supernatural change was 
needed and was effected. That surely is Greek, not Jewish. The 
Jewish position is that when the sinner repents and changes his ways he 
is acceptable to God. He is not changed, but his choice and his conduct 
are. The converted Christian in Pauline theology is a ‘new creature.’ 
Like the Fourth Gospel Paul holds that we ‘become’ children of God. 
The contrast is between this ‘becoming a child of God’—whether by 
faith alone or by faith and baptism is immaterial—and Jewish teaching, 
typified in Christian literature by the parable of the Prodigal Son, in 
which the Prodigal is always a Son, even though a foolish one. In this 
respect the doctrine of Sonship in early Christianity moves, as it were, 
on opposite lines with regard to Christ and with regard to Christians. 
Its tendency is to become less ‘adoptionist’ with regard to Christ, but to 
become more so with regard to Christians. The Prodigal was not an 
‘adopted’ son, but Paul’s converts were. 

In the Pauline scheme of thought there is no room for any ‘ Law,’ 
presented as a requirement of conduct necessary to salvation. Salvation 
to him is the gift of God, not the result of right conduct. Or, to put the 
same thing a little differently, right conduct is the result not the cause 
of salvation. 

In opposition to the Jews Paul maintained that the Law was not 
valid since the Messiah had come, and that circumcision was therefore 
not necessary for converts—it was an institution of the past—and, though 
Paul never states the point, it cannot have been necessary in his opinion 
for the children of Jewish Christians, for if such children were circumcised 
they were ipso facto under the Law. 

There is some evidence, though not very much, which goes to show 
that in the first century certain Jews held that when the Messiah came the 
Law would cease. But that was not and never has been orthodox Jewish 
teaching. Paul, however, held this view (had he done so before his con- 
version ?) and used it to support the contention that the Law, which had 
been promulgated because of transgressions, was now abrogated. 


Such is the contention of the Epistles to the Romans and the Galatians.! 

It must have been a prominent part of Paul’s teaching, yet it is not 
mentioned in Acts. Why not? The simplest though not entirely satis- 
factory explanation is that in the Lucan circle the question of the Law 
had been settled, and it was not necessary to discuss it. This theory is 
obviously easier to accept if it be held that the writer of Acts was not a 
companion of Paul and had never read the Pauline epistles. 

What other views are known to have existed on this subject ? It is the Law in 

simplest to start with the position ultimately adopted in the Church. pe beac 
This is set forth in the Didascalia, and through the Apostolic Constitu- 
tions, which incorporated the Didascalia in themselves, passed into the 
general body of Christian doctrine. It held that the Law is binding on 
Christians, but the Law is only that part of Exodus which precedes the 
worshipping of the golden calf in Exod. xxxii. All that followed was not 
Law but Sevrépwots, Secundatio, ‘secondary matter’ or Mishna, which was 
inflicted on Jews and on Jews only in punishment for their sin in worship- 
ping the golden calf. It was therefore not binding on any except Jews. 
In this way the ceremonial law of Leviticus was excluded, though if the 
generation of the Didascalia had been consistent it would have noted that 
circumcision was included. The truth, of course, is that this treatment of 
the subject is merely an artificial explanation devised in order to justify 
an established situation, rather than the intellectual conviction which 
produced that situation. 

At a period a little earlier than that of the Didascalia the Church had Marcion. 
to face the contention of Marcion that the Law was to be disregarded 
because it was not the work of the God of the Christians but of an inferior 
Demiurge, who was responsible for the tragedy of creation. Marcion 
maintained that he was the true interpreter of Paul, and in one sense he 
was certainly nearer to Paul than was the Didascalia. Paul knew nothing 
of any distinction between Law and Secundatio any more than he did of 
a distinction between moral and ceremonial law. 

Paul’s view of the Old Testament did indeed make a division in the Paul and 
Old Testament, perhaps as little tenable in the end as the distinction °°" 
between mora] and ceremonial law, but somewhat less subjective. He 
distinguished between the Promises and the Law. The Promises had been 
made to Abraham, were universal in scope, and pointed to the coming of the 
Messiah, Jesus. The Law was temporary, was given because of transgres- 
sion and as a means of education until the Promise was fulfilled. It then 
ceased. It should be noted that this line of thought applies only to the 
Torah—the Pentateuch. The Prophets were not identified by Paul—or 

1 The most difficult problem in these epistles scarcely concerns us here, but 
in fairness to Judaism it calls for mention. Paul undoubtedly argues that 
Judaism expects men to keep the whole Law without failure. Otherwise they 
are accursed and doomed to death (see Rom. iii. 20, vii. 10; Gal. iii. 11). 
Judaism never said or thought this. That the best of men often err was not 
unknown to Israel; but repentance was always able to restore the sinner. 
See Vol. I. pp. 53 ff. Why then does Paul speak as he does? Is it mere 
controversy, based on rabbinic exegesis? It is a very difficult question. 


with the 


by any other Jew—with the Law or with the Promise. The chief import- 
ance of prophecy was to foretell the future. The prophet in his lifetime 
was the messenger of God, exhorting and warning the people, and so far as 
these exhortations referred to permanent conditions they were of universal 
importance, but the main significance of the prophetic writings to Paul 
and all others of his and succeeding generations was to foretell the future, 
so that when the event happened it could be recognized as fulfilment. 
(See Is. xlviii. 3-8, and cf. the treatment in Justin Martyr, Apolog. i. 21 ff.) 

Thus Paul’s position was the rejection of the whole Law as such—the 
Decalogue just as much as the Law of leprosy, partly because he believed 
that with the coming of the Messiah the whole had been abrogated, partly 
no doubt because he was temperamentally opposed to that form of life 
which endeavours to obtain ‘ rightness’ by establishing a code of conduct. 
Therefore he was quite as ready as Marcion to abandon the Law. Both 
Paul and Marcion held that the Law was such that it could not be 
fulfilled ; in that sense salvation was impossible through the Law. But 
Paul explained this as due partly to the purpose for which the Law had 
been given, partly to the defect of human nature, corrupted by the 
transgression of Adam. Marcion explained it as due to the imperfect 
intelligence of the Demiurge. (See Harnack, Marcion, and cf. especially 
the chapter on Marcion in F. C. Burkitt’s The Gospel History and its 

Another way of dealing with the difficulty of the Law, so as to accept 
the Old Testament as inspired scripture without observing the Law, was 
that of ‘ Barnabas,’ who applied the method of allegorical interpretation 
to the Law, so that, for instance, the command not to eat pork meant to 
avoid the society of swine-like men. This system has always been used to 
some extent by commentators on ‘sacred’ books, whether Jewish, Christian, 
or heathen, but few ever went so far as ‘ Barnabas,’ who maintained that 
the literal interpretation was the invention of the devil. 

In these ways Christianity dealt with the question of the Law. Paul’s 
view was not accepted in the sense in which he had meant it, and the 
distinction between Law and Promise gave place to that between ‘ Law’ 
and ‘ Secundatio.’ The reason for this is not far to seek. In spite of Paul, 
‘ Law ’ in the sense of a code of conduct is a necessity for an institutionally 
organized society. The real objection to the Jewish Law was that it was an 
antiquated and impossible code which the Gentile world could not and 
would not accept. Circumcision especially was a Semitic custom repugnant 
to the Greek or Roman mind. But the Church could not exist without a 
law. Even Paul himself was obliged to lay down rules which formed an 
embryonic law. Before long a Christian law was formulated, using the 
‘Law,’ omitting the ‘Secundatio,’ and adding such additional precepts as 
seemed necessary. It never quite gained the position of the Jewish Law, 
but in the Middle Ages came very near it. 

(ii.) Paul’s Controversy with the Heathen.—As soon as Paul became a 
missionary to the heathen rather than to the Jews, a different controversy 
began. Of it we have no direct examples in his epistles, and relatively 


few incidental references to it. The earliest is perhaps the summary given 
in 1 Thess. i. 9 f. where Paul claims that he succeeded in persuading the 
Thessalonians to “‘ turn to God from idols, to serve a living and real God, 
and to wait for his son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead— 
Jesus who rescues us from the wrath to come.” Obviously, however, this 
success was not reached without controversy, and his enforced departure 
from Thessalonica shows that he roused strong opposition. It is of course 
impossible to reconstruct the details of his arguments, but their general 
outline can probably be recovered from Rom. i. 18-32, 1 Cor. i. 18-ii. 10, 
Acts xiv. 15-17 (Lystra), and xvii. 22-31 (Athens). They consisted of a 
‘theory of history’ presented so as to support the eschatological message 
of impending judgement and possible salvation. 

The first part of this theory is that, though there was evidence of the 
true God in nature, the Gentiles had refused to pay attention to it. The 
argument is the same as that developed in the second century by the 
Apologists, except that there is no trace of the doctrine, typical of the 
Apologists, that the Philosophers of Greece were analogous in the Greek 
world to the Prophets in the Hebrew, and there is a noticeable absence of 
the doctrine, even more typical of the Apologists, that the corruption of 
mankind was due to demons, though Paul undoubtedly believed in the 
maleficent working of devils and demons. (See O. Everling, Die pauwlinische 
Angelologie und Démonologie, and Dibelius, Die Geisterwelt im Glauben des 

The second part of the Pauline ‘theory of history’ was that God had 
exhausted his patience with men, and would speedily judge and punish 
them. Safety, however, was offered to those who accepted Jesus as their 
saviour, appointed by God for this purpose of salvation, and also the pre- 
destined agent of God at the coming judgement (cf. Rom. ii. 16; Acts 
xvii. 31). 

The main differences between the Epistles and Acts are: (a) the Epistles 
tend to emphasize the work of Jesus as saviour, Acts as judge. 

(b) In the Epistles salvation is due to union with Jesus, which is also 
represented as the possession of the Spirit ‘ which is the Lord,’ but in Acts 
salvation is due to repentance and baptism which conferred the Spirit. 
Both in the Epistles and in Acts the human deed necessary to accept the 
Divine offer of salvation is called ‘faith,’ and those who thus accept it 
are called of ructoi or of muatevovtes. On the other hand both in the 
Epistles and in Acts salvation is also regarded as the free favour given 
to those who had been predestined for it, but in neither does there appear 
to be any real perception of the intellectual difficulty involved in the 
attempt to accept simultaneously theories of salvation by human faith 
and by divine predestination. 

There are indeed other difficult questions involved, but they belong 
rather to the interpretation of the Epistles, which are more obscure than 
Acts. How far, for instance, did Paul identify the Spirit and the risen 
Jesus ? What part did baptism play in his scheme in relation to the gift 
of the Spirit ? Was it a sacrament, as it was in Johannine and Catholic 
Christianity, or a symbolic ceremony, as it was in Judaism which had no 

with Jewish 


true sacraments ? Possibly there is not sufficient evidence in the Epistles 
to justify any answer to these questions, which will nevertheless prove 
fundamental in any attempt to reconstruct fully Paul’s preaching to the 
Gentiles and the controversy which it aroused. For the commentator on 
Acts it is sufficient to note that they exist, for so far as Acts is concerned 
it cannot be doubted that the Spirit was central in the writer’s doctrine of 
the church, and that he held it to be given normally either by baptism or 
by the laying on of hands. 

(c) In the Epistles the salvation of men is very clearly dependent on 
the death of Jesus, which was an atoning sacrifice. In Acts, however, there 
is at most only one reference to this doctrine—in xx. 28 ‘ the church of the 
Lord which he rescued (repreroujoato) by the blood of his own one’ 
(see note ad loc.), and its absence is one of the most remarkable features of 
Acts. The death of Jesus has in Acts, except in xx. 28, no soteriological 
significance ; it is merely a Jewish crime. In Pauline doctrine the death 
of Jesus redeems men from sin; this much is clear, even though it may 
be hard to say whether men make use of this redemption by faith, or by 
baptism, or by both, and whether they do so by an act of their own free 
will or by the grace of God given to the elect. But in Acts this is not 
mentioned ; in strictly Jewish fashion repentance—with its corollary, 
faith—is all that is necessary. 

(iii.) Paul’s Controversy with the Jewish Christians.—Both Acts and the 
Epistles give more information on thissubject than they do on the preaching 
of Paul either to Jews or to Gentiles. From Acts xv. it is clear that there 
was a party in Jerusalem which insisted on the observance of the Jewish 
Law. This party was the ancestor of the Nazarenes or Ebionites who 
continued to exist on a small scale until the end of the fourth century. 
Acts taken by itself would not suggest that this party carried on a vigorous 
missionary propaganda throughout the Roman Empire, but the Epistles 
to the Romans and to the Galatians are usually interpreted to show that 
they did so.* 

There are many problems with regard to the Jewish-Christian party 
which are likely to remain permanently obscure. What, for instance, was its 
relation to James ? And what value has the Pseudo-Clementine literature 
for the reconstruction of its teaching? But for the present purpose it is 
sufficient to note that (a) it maintained the validity of the Law and insisted 
on circumcision, but (b) regarded Jesus as the Messiah, though exactly in 
what sense is open to argument. 

Did they think of him as the Messiah of the Psalms of Solomon, the 
Prince of the House of David, who would restore the Kingdom to Israel, 
or as the Messiah of the Book of Enoch, who would appear at the end of 
this world, to judge it, and to admit or to exclude from the Life of the 
World to Come? Or did they, like the later Christians, combine both 

1 In view of Prof. Ropes’s book, The Singular Problem of the Epistle to the 
Galatians, this interpretation is open to grave doubt. In any case, however, 
there certainly were Jewish Christians in Palestine, though there may have 
been extremely few elsewhere. 


expectations? We do not know, and probably cannot know, as there is 
no sufficient extant evidence.* 

An extremely difficult and important question is the relation of James The position 
to this party. of James. 

His position seems clear up toa point. His representatives in Antioch 
undoubtedly insisted on the Jewish manner of life, which must at least 
mean observance by Gentile converts of whatever rules were in force at 
that time for the regulation of social relationship between Jews and God- 
fearers. All the evidence seems to suggest that these rules are embodied 
in the apostolic decrees, There is, as has been said, no evidence at all 
that Paul ever accepted them as part of the Christian way of life, but 
there is every reason to suppose that they were current in circles where 
Jewish Christians were found. In other words, there is no reason to 
suppose that Acts is wholly fiction. 

Did James go further, and insist on circumcision for converts ? 
Possibly he did. But the possibility cannot be excluded that James 
and others believed that the life of the ‘ World to Come ’—though perhaps 
not the ‘Days of the Messiah ’—would be open to pious God-fearers. That 
this view was held in some circles seems clear from the Sibylline Oracles,? 
but before opinion can be clarified on this point we need more knowledge 
on two points: (a2) How far did Jews in the first century admit that 
pious God-fearers had a share in the ‘ World to Come’? and (b) How far 
did the first Christian eschatology contemplate the ‘Days of the 
Messiah’ as well as the ‘World to Come’? On the second point it is 
possible that Jesus contemplated only the speedy coming of the ‘ World 
to Come,’ and that Paul and others (notably the Johannine Apocalypse) 
introduced a Christian version of the ‘ Days of the Messiah,’ which was 
not part of the teaching of Jesus. (See Vol. I. pp. 267 ff. and 362 ff.) 

If this be so, quite conceivably the position of James was that the 
way of life was open to those heathen who became God-fearers, but that 
they must obey the rules laid down for God-fearers. Whether this be 
so or not, it would certainly seem probable that this was the position 
adopted by Peter and Barnabas under pressure from James, but refused 
by Paul. In favour of the view that James did not go further than this, 
and did not insist on circumcision, is Paul’s clear statement in Gal. ii. 9 
that James accepted Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles, which certainly did 
not include circumcision. Against it is the statement in Acts xv. 1 that 
trouble was caused in Antioch by those who came down from Judaea 

1 It has sometimes been thought that we learn something about it from 
the Pseudo-Clementine literature. This is improbable. The Pseudo-Clementine 
literature is a work which resembles many more recent productions in being 
an attempt to reconstruct Apostolic Christianity so as to edify a later genera- 
tion. Such books are neither wholly history nor wholly fiction, they are a 
separate genre, but the historian of the early Church does well to make little 
use of them. The Pseudo-Clementines throw an immensely valuable light on 
the thought of the fourth or possibly third century, but little or none on the 
history of the first. 

2 See p. 209. 

with Gentile 


and insisted on circumcision. It is, however, not stated that these 
Judaeans were sent by James. 

A possible view which seems to me to have general probability in its 
favour, though it cannot be demonstrated by evidence, is that James was 
willing, as Galatians says, to condone Paul’s practice of not circumcising 
his converts. He did not feel that this excluded them from the World 
to Come, and if the World to Come was all that interested these Goyim, 
and Paul was content to have it so, well and good, But he, James, the 
brother of the Lord, and a son of David according to the flesh, did not 
forget the customs, and desired to remain faithful to the Law of God, 
given to His People. He would have been deeply shocked at the idea 
that Jews, however much they believed that Jesus was the Messiah, 
should give up circumcision, just as Protestants who have abandoned 
all belief in baptismal regeneration would nevertheless be shocked at any 
suggestion that they should give up baptizing their children. 

Some such view as this would seem to do most justice to the three 
important pieces of evidence which we possess. (i.) Paul’s statement 
that James accepted his preaching to the Gentiles. (ii.) The picture of 
James in Acts xxi. 17 ff. (iii.) The undoubted fact that James lived in 
Jerusalem until almost the beginning of the Jewish-Roman war, and was 
accepted by most of the Jews as a pious and devout worshipper in the 

The position of Peter is also far from clear. It seems certain from 
Acts as well as from Galatians that he did not insist on the circumcision, 
but both he and Barnabas obviously made to James some concession 
which Paul refused. It is clear from Galatians that this concession 
concerned the social intercourse of Christians or Gentile Christians with 
Jews or with Jewish Christians. It is a fair guess that the decrees, or 
the attitude which they embody, belong to this episode, but the details 
must necessarily remain obscure. (See Additional Note 16.) 

(iv.) The Controversy with Gentile Christians.—The last controversy in 
which Paul was concerned was with Greek-speaking Christians who were 
for the most part converts from heathenism, and in any case were permeated 
with the religious preconceptions of the Greco-oriental world. It will 
probably always be doubtful how far Paul himself accepted or had inherited 
those preconceptions, but the Epistles to the Corinthians show that he was 
engaged during his stay at Ephesus in a violent controversy which turned 
mainly on the relation between them and the Christian message which his 
converts had accepted. 

Stated briefly the situation was this: the Corinthians, who are doubt- 
less to be taken as typical of Gentile Christians, believed in general that 
Christianity gave them the Spirit of God which so changed their nature 
that they became—like divine beings—immortal. It is unnecessary here to 
discuss the difficulties which arise if we ask the three questions which con- 
stitute the ‘ Pauline problem ’ in relation to Gentile Christianity—({i.) How 
far did they or Paul think that this Spirit was the result of baptism ? 
(ii.) Did they or Paul think that without the Spirit life ended with the 


grave ? (iii.) How far did they or Paul identify or distinguish Jesus and 
the Spirit? But whatever may be the answer to these problems it is 
certain that controversy arose when, especially in Corinth, the converts 
began to discuss the relation between the life of the Spirit and Gentile 
concepts of sacrificial meals, the problems of marriage and sex, the bearing 
of the life of the Spirit on personal conduct, and the connexion between the 
immortality given by the Spirit and the belief in a resurrection. 

On all these points Paul had definite opinions, but the most important 
was his insistence that the life of the Spirit re-enforced and did not cancel 
the claims of a strict Jewish code of morality, and that the gift of im- 
mortality did not exclude the Jewish belief in a resurrection. 

Though the details are obscure it is clear from the Epistles to the 
Corinthians that the controversy on these topics was extremely bitter, and 
that Paul himself was at times doubtful whether he would succeed in 
carrying his Gentile converts with him. But in the end he won. He failed 
in his controversy with the Jews ; probably he failed, at least partially, in 
his controversy with Jewish Christians, but. he triumphed in this, his final 
controversy, with Gentile Christians. It was this triumph which secured 
him his position in the Church—which is Gentile Christianity—and 
preserved his epistles as Holy Scripture, for it is to be remembered that 
though for later ages Paul lived because of his epistles, for the early 
Church the epistles lived because of Paul. 

Why is there not a single word about this controversy in Acts ?_ That Luke's 
it is a reality, not a figment of historical imagination, is proved by the ‘!/e"°* 

epistles. But Luke is absolutely silent on the whole matter, and if we 
did not possess the epistles we should suppose that in the Apostolic age no 
suggestion of quarrels ruffled the peace of Gentile Christianity. Whether 
‘Luke’ was a companion of Paul or not he clearly had reliable information 
as to Paul’s missionary career in Ephesus and Corinth. He cannot have 
been ignorant of the controversy, and his silence is puzzling. 

The only answer which we can give is that he desired to represent 
the Apostolic Church as harassed by persecution from without, but never 
disturbed by quarrels within. Even in chapter xv. there is no quarrel 
on such issues. There was a momentary difference of opinion, but no 
quarrel and no discussion among the leaders. The quarrel with Barnabas, 
which in Galatians is doctrinal, is merely personal in Acts. 

It is the same picture which Clement of Rome drew a little later, and 
is copied in all the long series of pseudo-Apostolic writings. It is found 
in the speech of Paul at Miletus, ‘‘ After I am gone [if that be the right 
translation, see note ad loc.}, grievous wolves shall enter ”’—which implies 
that they had not done so as yet. It is only contradicted, but then in 
the most convincing and absolute manner, by the epistles of Paul himself, 
which show that turbulent discussion, not ‘ deep peace,’ was as character- 
istic of the Gentile Church in its infancy as in its maturity. 

Paul’s route. 

The first 




Nore XVIII. Pavt’s Route in Asta Minor 
By Krirsorp Lake 

The route followed by Paul on his missionary journeys generally offers 
no special difficulty ; the places in Europe which he visited—Neapolis, 
Philippi, Amphipolis, Apollonia, Thessalonica, Beroea, Athens, Corinth— 
are all well known, and, except for the journey from Beroea to Athens 
(see note, Vol. IV. pp. 207 f.), the road which he probably took is quite 
obvious. This, however, is only partly true of his journeys in Asia Minor. 
Here the towns mentioned can indeed be generally identified, but when he 
refers to districts it is not always certain what Luke means, and the route 
which Paul followed is obscure. 

The purpose of this note, therefore, is to discuss the difficulties which 
are found if Paul be followed on his journeys across Asia Minor. 

Chapters xiii. and xiv. cover the first journey. The localities on Paul’s 
way out are Perga, Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, and on his 
return he retraced his steps except that Attalia took the place of Perga. 

1. Perga—Antioch—Iconium 

There is no problem connected with Perga except the doubt whether 
Acts necessarily means that the party landed at Perga. (See note on 
xiii. 13.) The text merely states that having started from Paphos, Paul and 
his party came to Perga. This would not exclude the possibility that they 
actually landed at Attalia. Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, p. 16) 
admits that at present Perga could not be reached by a sea-going boat, 
and assumes that the channel up the Cestrus was kept open by dredging. 
It is of course true that this was done in Ephesus, but there is no evidence 
that it was at Perga, and according to Strabo (p. 667) Perga was not even 
on the river, but five miles distant. Therefore it is quite doubtful whether 
the party actually landed at Perga. 

From Perga they went to Antioch of Pisidia. Probably one reason 
for going to Antioch was its large Jewish colony (Josephus, Anéiq. xii. 3. 1). 
It was the chief city in the southern part of the province of Galatia, and 
there was doubtless a well-recognized road between it and Perga, but the 
course of this road is by no means certain. The most probable theory 
seems to be that of Ramsay (Church in the Roman Empire, p. 19). Accord- 
ing to this it went up one of the eastern branches of the Cestrus to Adada, 
which is now called Karabavlo. Ramsay thinks that Paul was the patron 
saint of the city, and that the church, of which some ruins remain, was 
dedicated to him. Churches dedicated to St. Paul are not uncommon, and 
this may account for the modern name of the town; the only objection is 
that as a rule in local Turkish corruptions of the name of a Greek saint 
the ‘ saint’ is usually represented by Ayo (aytos). 

From Adada the road to Antioch, according to Ramsay, is uncertain. 
There is a path along the south-eastern end of Lake Egerdir, the ancient 
Limnai, but Ramsay thinks that an easier road would have been one which 


turns to the east after leaving Adada and goes through the hills between 
it and Lake Karalis. 

From Antioch Paul went to Iconium. Here again further knowledge Iconium. 
of the locality has changed opinion as to the way by which Paul is likely 
to have gone from Antioch to Iconium. The chief feature of the country 
is a great mountain ridge, known as the Sultan Dagh, the pass over which 
is at least four thousand feet above Antioch. The main road from Ephesus 
across Asia Minor to the Euphrates valley went immediately to the north 
of this mountain, and for any traveller coming from Ephesus the natural 
road would have been along this main artery of traffic as far as Laodicea, 
from which a branch road went to Iconium. But although Antioch seems 
to be quite close to this road, it is unfortunately separated from it by the 
whole bulk of the Sultan Dagh, and to reach it would mean going over the 
pass just mentioned and joining the main road at Philomelion. 

It is therefore practically certain that he went along the Via Sebaste The Via 
which was built for Augustus by his propraetor Cornutus Aquila in are 
6 B.c. It went from Antioch through Selki, where the 44th and 45th 
milestones have been found, and Yonuslar (the ancient Pappa), where a 
milestone (the number is missing) is also extant. These milestones had 
originally the general inscription Imperator Caesar Divi filius, Augustus, 
Pontifex Maximus, Consul XI, Designatus XII, Imperator XV, Tribunicia 
potestate XVIII, Viam Sebasten, curante Cornuto Aquila legato suo pro 
praetore, fecit. After Pappa the road must have passed through the 
Bagharzik Deré, and probably through Bulumia to Lystra, though 
absolute evidence of this is not yet available. 

This road is doubtless referred to in a passage in the extract from the 
second-century Acta Pauli,? known as The Acts of Paul and Thecla (ii. 3). 

It runs as follows : 

1 See H. S. Cronin, ‘ First Report of a Journey in Pisidia,’ in the Journal of 
Hellenic Studies, xxii. (1902), pp. 94 ff., esp. pp. 109 f. 

2 The Acts of Paul from which the commonly known Acts of Paul and 
Thecla was taken is one of the five ‘ Leucian’ Acts used by the Manichaeans 
in Africa. The Acts of Paul at all events was also recognized as scripture by 
the orthodox in Africa, and was quoted as such by Augustine in his controversy 
with Felix the Manichee. Tertullian, however, says that it had been recently 
composed by a presbyter in Asia Minor in a mistaken attempt to glorify the 
Apostle. The original text of the complete Acta is lost, but large parts of an 
early Coptic version have been published by Carl Schmidt, and the same 
scholar has recently announced the discovery of a large section of the Greek 
text in a papyrus of the third century. There cannot be any doubt but that 
the commonly current Acts of Paul and Thecla are an extract from this second- 
century document. The possibility of course remains that the author of the 
original book was making use of earlier sources, but there is no evidence of this. 
When Ramsay wrote, Carl Schmidt’s discovery had not been made, and 
Ramsay regarded the Acts of Paul and Thecla as an independent work. Out 
of a large literature see especially Lipsius and Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum 
Apocrypha, C. Schmidt, Die alien Petrusakten and Acta Pauli, M. R. James, 
Apocryphal Acts, and ‘ Acta Iohannis’ in Texts and Studies. 




Kai éropevero kata tiv BaotAuxhy 6d3v thv ért Atvorpay, Kat 
elorijKker dmekdexdpevos avtov, Kal Tos éEpxopévovs eOedper Kata TV 
phveow Titov. «tdev S& rdv IlatAov épxdpevov, avdpa puxpdv TH 
peyeOe, pirdv tH Kepady, ayxdrov Tais Kvijpats, evextixdy, civodpuy, 
puxpOs éerippwov, xapitos TAHpy’ mote pev yap éhaivero ws dvOpwros, 
mote S& dyyéov rpdcwrov eter. 

It cannot be doubted that the 685s Bac.AKy in this passage is the 
Greek rendering of Via Sebaste. Why however should BactArKy) have 
been substituted for the Greek word Sebaste? The guess may be 
hazarded that the road was restored rather than built by Augustus, and 
that Sebaste was an attempt to connect with Rome an older road going 
back to Persian times or earlier. Augustus seems never to have 
neglected an opportunity, however small, of diverting old names or old 
customs into a closer connexion with Rome. The ‘ Royal road’ of 
Herodotus is usually supposed to have gone through Ancyra, but W. M. 
Calder seems to have proved conclusively that it really went through 
Lycaonia. If so, the 663s BaovArKy of the Acta Pauli is a characteristic 
survival of the ancient name of the great road which Augustus partly 
restored and incorporated into his system. 

2. Lystra—Derbe 

Lystra is the modern Zoldera, on the northern bank of the Kopree 
river, opposite to and about a mile from the village of Khatyn Serai. 
That Zoldera is Lystra was first proved in 1885 by J. R. S. Sterrett,? who 
found a Latin inscription : 

DIVUM AUG(ustum) 
coL(onia) IUL(ia) FE 




D(ecreto) D(ecurionum). 

This inscription not improbably indicates that there was an Augustewm 
at Lystra just as there was at Ancyra and Antioch, and the question 
occurs inevitably whether this is not the same as the temple which Luke 
describes as that of Zeus. At Ancyra the Augustewm seems to have been 
outside the city, and in Lystra it may have been associated with the 
Lycaonian cult which Luke identified with that of Zeus (see note on 
xiv. 13). 

The road to Lystra from Iconium is thus described by Sir W. M. 
Ramsay,® who visited Khatyn Serai in 1882, but did not cross over to 

1 Herodotus v. 52, and W. M. Calder, ‘The Royal Road in Herodotus,’ in 
the Classical Review, xxxix. 1 (1925) pp. 7 ff. 

2 The Wolfe Expedition to Asia Minor (vol. iii. of the Papers of the American 
School of Classical Studies at Athens), 1888, Inscr. No, 242, p. 142. 

3 The Church in the Roman Empire, pp. 47 f. 


Zoldera: “ Lystra is about six hours 8.8.W. from Iconium. The road passes 
for a mile or more through the luxuriant gardens of the suburbs, and then 
across the level plain, rising gently for twelve miles. Then it reaches a 
range of hills, which stretch outwards in a south-easterly direction from 
the mountainous country that bounds the vast Lycaonian plains on the 
west and separates them from the great depression in which are situated 
the two connected lakes Trogitis (Seidi Sheher) and Karalis (Bey Sheher, 
the largest in Asia Minor). This range, which entails a further ascent 
of 500 feet, diminishes in height towards the east, and sinks down to the 
plain ten miles away. After crossing these hills, the road descends into 
a valley, in breadth about a mile, down the centre of which flows a river 
towards the south-east ; and on the southern bank of the river, about a 
mile from the place where the road leaves the hills, stands the village of 
Khatyn Serai, ‘ The Lady’s Mansion.’ The name dates no doubt from the 
time of the Seljuk Sultans of Roum, when the village was an estate and 
country residence of some sultana from Konia (as Iconium is now called). 
Its elevation, about 3777 feet above the sea and 427 above Iconium, fits 
it for a summer residence.” 

The exact site of Derbe is not known; but at present the most probable Derbe. 
suggestion is either that of J. R. S. Sterrett, who thinks that Derbe was 
at Losta (or Zosta), or that of W. M. Ramsay, who thinks that it was 
probably at Gudelissin. Ramsay thinks that the ruins at Losta are 
merely stones which were brought from Gudelissin, which is about three 
miles W.N.W. of Losta. Gudelissin has a large mound, of the kind some- 
times described as Assyrian Tells, and referred to by Strabo as ‘ cities of 
Semiramis’; doubtless its excavation would be interesting, and it may 
be the site of Derbe. I admit, however, to the feeling, which apparently 
Professor Sterrett shared, that Acts xiv. 20 implies (though admittedly it 
does not state) that Paul did not stop anywhere between Lystra and Derbe. 
Gudelissin is about 35 miles from Lystra, and could not be reached in one 
day of ordinary travel. It would therefore not surprise me if Derbe were 
ultimately found to have been rather nearer to Zoldera. 

Derbe appears in Acts xiv. to have been the place where Paul turned 
back and retraced his steps through Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch 
to Perga, but on this occasion it is definitely stated that Attalia was the 
actual port of departure for sailing to Syrian Antioch. It should be noted 
that the inaccuracy of speaking of the first great city reached instead of 
the actual port of arrival, which probably made Luke say Perga instead 
of Attalia in xiii. 13, is here observable in the reference to Antioch, for of 
course they really landed at Seleucia. 

If E. Schwartz’s theory about Acts be accepted, these few verses, xiv. 21-26. 
xiv. 21-26, are at least partly editorial, and put in to round out the 
narrative (see pp. 201 ff. and 237 f.). It is not impossible, is even prob- 
able, but it cannot be proved. If it be accepted, xv. 40 and probably 
part of the context must also be editorial. According to this theory 
Barnabas probably left Paul at Iconium and returned alone to Antioch, 
while Paul went on as is described in xvi. 4 ff. 

If, however, the text be followed as it stands, the Apostolic Council The Council. 

xvi. 6. 

The value of 
the later 


described in chap. xv. comes between the first and second journeys, and 
the second missionary journey began when Paul again left Antioch, after 
quarrelling with Barnabas about Mark. The first part is only briefly 
indicated. Paul appears to have gone to Derbe by land, so that he must 
have gone through the Syrian Gates, crossing Cilicia to Tarsus, thence 
through the Cilician Gates, and so along the northern side of the Taurus 
through the kingdom of Antiochus to Derbe, Lystra, and Iconium. 

So much is clear: the difficulty begins with xvi. 6. 

The Greek of the Neutral text of this verse is 5:7 Oov dé tiv Ppvyiav 
kal TaXdatixny xopav, KwAvbevtes id Tod dyiov rvetpatos AaAjRoat 
Tov Adyov év TH’ Acia, EABdvTes 5é Kata THY Mvoiav éreipafov eis THY 
BeOvviav ropevOjvar Kai ovk ciavev adrods Td mvedpa “Inood’ rap- 
eXOdvres 5¢ tHv Muciav xaréBnoav cis Tpwdéda. The Western text is 
the same except that it reads pndevi AaAjoat Tdv Adyov Tov Geod Ev TH 
Acia, substitutes yevopevor for €XOdvres, and dueAGdvres for taped Odvres. 
Obviously these changes are unimportant for interpretation, but the later 
text read SveAOdvres for di7AOGov and inserted t7v before DaAarv«ijy 

To adopt either of these later readings would be a violation of all 
recognized textual probability. A reading found in the later mss., but in 
neither the Neutral nor Western text, has no claim to be considered. But 
it is worth asking why these changes were made by the later scribes. 
AteXOdvres for 1A Oov is doubtless due* to an attempt to understand 
Paul’s route, and it is intimately connected with the insertion of tiv 
before 'adatixijv xepav. The emendator clearly took Ppvyiav as a sub- 
stantive, and held that it was distinct from the ‘ Galatian territory.’ But 
to express this in Greek usually requires an article before .aAatuxny xépav. 
The emendation is therefore evidence that in the fourth or fifth century 
it was held that Paul travelled first through Phrygia, and then through 
Galatia. When in Galatia he proposed to go into Asia, but could not, 
and therefore went on until, kata tv Mvoiay, he tried to enter Bithynia. 
This also proved impossible, so he went through Mysia to Troas. To the 
scribe of the late text it seemed clear that the question of entry into Asia 
arose after Paul was in Galatia. Therefore he changed 617A Gov to SueAGovtes, 
and so bears witness that kwAvGevtes ought to be interpreted as describing 
the state of things which led up to d:7A Gov. Similarly his preference for 
tv L'adatixijv xwépav corroborates the opinion of modern grammarians 
that the original phrase meant a single district: had it meant two districts 
the article must have been repeated before Tadatixiyv ywparv. 

Therefore, rejecting the late text, and accepting the judgement of 
the late scribe as to the meaning of the original text, we must say that 
kwAvbevres conditions du7Aov and that riv Ppvyiav cai Tadarixijy 
xépav means two localities conceived as a single district. 

1 There is a different account in the Acts of Barnabas, but it is probably 
pure fiction. It confuses Antioch in Syria with Pisidian Antioch, and makes 
Mark a servant of a priest of Zeus in Iconium. The text is published by Lipsius 
and Bonnet, Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, ii. 2, pp. 292 ff. 

2 See Vol. III. p. 152. 


Thus the conditions which must be met by any solution of the problem The 

of Paul’s route between Lystra and Troas are the following : 2 ps 
(i.) He wished to preach in ‘ Asia,’ but was unable to do so. problem. 

(ii.) He therefore passed through tiv Ppvyiav cat Tadaruxiy xopav 
until he was kata tv Muciav. 

(iii.) He then tried to enter Bithynia but was unable, and so went 
through Mysia to Troas. 

The doubtful points, which make the solution difficult, are : br aoor’ 
(a) What is the meaning of ‘ Asia’ ? pp bs 
(b) What spot is meant by xara tv Mvuoiav ? 

(c) What is the meaning of tHv Ppvyiav kat Tadatixyy xopav ? 

(a) Asia.—This is an elusive word which is used in several senses: _ Asia. 

(i.) The continent of Asia, as distinct from Europe. This sense is 
found in geographers, but clearly cannot be the one used by Luke. 

(ii.) Asia with the adjective minor is also used by geographers in the 
same sense as it is to-day, but is equally inappropriate here. 

(iii.) Far more often, especially in official documents, Asia is used in 
the sense of the Roman province; it is probably so used in 1 Peter i. 1. 
But it must be remembered that Asia, like the other provinces, varied in 
size from time to time. The original ‘ Asia’ was Mysia and Lydia, and 
perhaps Caria. Phrygia was added in 116 B.c., but in 80 B.c. the Dioceses 
of Synnada, Apameia, and Laodicea were given to Cilicia, only to be 
restored to Asia in 49 B.c. 

(iv.) It is also used in a narrower! sense of the Greek cities of the 
Aegean coast (using coast in a liberal sense) with the territory adjacent to 
them. This is probably the older use, as not only the provinces of the 
Empire but also the kingdoms they replaced were named a parte potiort. 
An example of this older and narrower use of ‘ Asia’ is given by the 
‘Seven Churches of Asia’ of the Apocalypse. It means the Greek cities 
of the district of which the line Ephesus—Smyrna—Pergamos is the 
western limit, and Laodicea the eastern. Possibly the other cities of the 
Lycus valley, Colossae and Hierapolis, and even Apameia, were sometimes 
included, but Strabo ? includes them in Phrygia. Of course Strabo knew 

1 “ Asia is a term about which it is very difficult to decide. The Roman 
province Asia had been formed in 133 B.c., and the name seems to have soon 
come into popular use, because there was no other term to denote the Aegean 
coast lands. But during the first century before Christ the province was greatly 
increased in size, and it is very difficult to determine after this time whether 
the name Asia is used in the popular sense of the Aegean coast lands or denotes 
the entire Roman province; in short, whether it includes Phrygia or not.’ 
(W. M. Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 150.) 

2 Very probably Apameia was just as Greek-speaking among the upper 
classes in the city as was Ephesus, but the surrounding population was definitely 
Phrygian. Strabo goes even further and includes the cities of the Lycus in 
Phrygia, but says that Apameia was the greatest market of Asia 77s idiws Neyouévns 
after Ephesus. I do not feel sure whether Asia here means the restricted district 



that all this district was in the province of Asia, but as a geographer he 
regards west-central Asia as Phrygia, and distinguishes it from Galatia 
and Mysia. So far as Acts is concerned the most important evidence is 
given in Acts ii. 9 f., where the component parts, or some of them, of Asia 
Minor are described as Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia. 
Obviously Asia is here used in a sense which excluded Phrygia. 

In which of these senses is ‘ Asia’ used in Acts xvi. 6? The choice 
is clearly between the third and the fourth. It either means the province 
Asia, or Asia in the narrower sense of Acts ii. and the Apocalypse. 

In favour of the first possibility is the place where Paul was at 
the time. Acts xvi. 5 brings him to Lystra or Iconium. From Iconium 
it was only a step to the frontier of the Roman province of Asia, but it 
was a long way to the ‘ Asian’ cities in the narrower sense. The natural 
meaning of 67AOov «TA. in xvi. 6 is that they went through Phrygia, 
because they had been prevented from preaching in Asia, which implies 
that Asia was near at hand. On the other hand, none of the other words 
used in the passage are the names of Roman provinces, and if Asia really 
means ‘ Greek cities,’ it may have been within Paul’s purpose even when 
he wasinIconium. Of course,on Ramsay’s view, that kwAvOerres is merely 
an equivalent of kat éxwAv@noav, Asia in the narrower sense is more 
probable ; but grammar seems to render his theory unlikely. 

(b) xara tHv Muciav. Strabo’s accurate account leaves no doubt as 
to the general position of Mysia. It was the district from the shores of 
Troy to the eastern slopes of the Mysian Olympus. Thus when Paul 
is described as being kata tv Mvoiav when he considered going to 
Bithynia, the meaning is plain. He was not far south of the Bithynian 
boundary and not far east of the Mysian Olympus. If it were necessary 
to choose a single town, Dorylaion or Kotiaion would admirably fit all 
the conditions of the problem; these towns are in Phrygia, but close to 
country inhabited by Galatians.* 

It will be seen that this spot, as well as the whole of Mysia, was well 
inside the frontiers of the province of Asia, and also that there is no spot 
in the province of Galatia which could fairly be described as xara tyv 

under discussion, or the province, or the continent, but I think that it probably 
means the continent. Perhaps the point really is that Asia was the name 
used by Greeks to describe the eastern shore of the Aegean. The inhabitants 
of various districts called their lands after their own names, but the Greeks, 
who could not use their own name, because it belonged to the country from 
which they had emigrated, called it all Asia. Asia is a Greek name, not used 
by Lydians or Phrygians or Carians or others, but only by Greeks and Romans. 
Hence the description which the xowév of Asia gives of itself is of éml ris "Actas 
"EdAnves. Therefore also it was possible for such a city as Laodicea, with a 
mixed population, to belong to the xowdr rijs ’Acias, and so to be spoken of 
at times as in Asia, at other times as in Phrygia. 

1 Thus the whole district from Iconium to Dorylaion was one in which 
Phrygians and Galatians must have been closely intermingled. It was Phrygia, 
but it was also Galatian country. 


Mvoiav. Nevertheless it seems to me clear that the writer did not think 
that this journey, ending near Dorylaion, was in Asia in his sense of the 
word. It is indeed possible to say—as Ramsay does—that Paul was only 
prevented from preaching in Asia, not from travelling across it, but the 
prima facie force of the words used is that ‘ Asia ’ was one district, ‘ Phrygia 
and Galatian territory’ another, Mysia a third, and Bithynia a fourth. 
Paul originally wished to go to Asia, but could not preach there, so he 
went through ‘ Phrygia and Galatian country,’ and when he could not go 
straight on into Bithynia he turned to the west and went to Troas. 

(c) The meaning of tiv Ppvyiav kai Tadarixnv xdpav. This question 
has often been discussed in commentaries on Acts and on the Epistle to the 
Galatians. There is, first of all, a grammatical question. It is conceivable 
either that Ppvyiav is a substantive and means ‘ Phrygia,’ or that it is 
an adjective qualifying xdpa, strictly co-ordinate with TaAarixjv, and 
meaning ‘ Phrygian.’ 

The majority of recent commentators take the latter view. It is 
quite possible, and is supported by the awkwardness of the alternate 
view, which gives us a substantive with an article closely tied up to another 
substantive with a qualifying adjective without an article. It is argued 
that ‘Phrygia and the Galatian district’ could not be translated into 
Greek by tiv Ppvyiav cai TaXdatixjv xwpay, for, as the later scribes saw, 
if Phrygia is a substantive, there should be an article before adatixijy. 

Nevertheless there is more to be said for the other view than has often 
been admitted in recent books. Two arguments deserve consideration. 

(i.) Ppvycos, the adjective formed from Ppvg, was ‘ of three termina- ®piyros. 
tions ’ in earlier Greek, but Lucian uses it as of only two,! and I know of no 
instance of the nominative with the feminine termination in Greek con- 
temporary with the New Testament. There may be examples of which 
I am ignorant, and it may be merely an accident, but the spelling and use 
of such words is largely a matter of fashion, and it is probable that the 
declension of many words was in practice more irregular than grammarians 
have always admitted.? In any case Ppvyia had undoubtedly become a 
substantive proper name, and the first thought of any reader would be 
to interpret it so. Moreover it is quite possible that TaAarixy) xadpa was 
a recognized name for a certain district (probably, as is argued later, 
where Gaelic was predominantly spoken), and was customarily used 
without the article, especially in combination with another substantive. 
One article was enough for both. An exact parallel is given by Tis 
*Irovpaias Kat Tpaywviridos xapas in Luke iii. 1, where it is similarly 
possible to say that "Irovpaias is an adjective, but it can really hardly be 
doubted that to the ordinary reader the phrase meant ‘ Ituraea and the 
district of Trachonitis.’ 

(ii.) Even more powerful is the argument supplied by Acts xviii. 23, Acts xviii. 
where Luke writes of Paul’s return from Syria to Ephesus that he ¢é7\6ev **- 

1 Harmonides 1. 
* For an example of heteroclitism see the notes on ‘ Lystra,’ pp. 162f., and 
on ‘ Three Sabbaths,’ pp. 202 f. 

The history 
of Asia 


(from Antioch) Svepxdpevos xabeEjs tHv Tadarixiy xopav cat Ppvyiav. 
Here again we have the same composite district, travelled in the reverse 
direction. Exactly the same words are used, but in the opposite order, 
and it is impossible to argue here that Ppvyia is an adjective. As before, 
the article comes at the beginning and is not repeated with the second 

Thus I believe that there is a preponderance of sound argument for 
thinking that in xvi. 6 Ppvyia was intended by Luke for a substantive 
as it is in xviii. 23. Why Luke or anyone else used one form for Phrygia 
and another for ‘the Galatian district’ is a further point; but it is not 
impossible that he did not know, any more than most Englishmen know 
why they add -shire to the name of some counties and not to others, or 
Americans know why they say ‘State of Maine’ (not, be it noted, the 
State of Maine) but ‘ New York State.’ 

Accepting, then, the view that 7 Ppvyia cai Tadatixi ydpa means 
a composite entity of which one part was called ‘ Phrygia’ and the other 
‘ Galatian country,’ the questions arise: (i.) in what sense would these two 
names be applied to any one part of Asia Minor? and (ii.) what route 
did Paul follow if he went through it ? 

The obscurity which surrounds any attempt to define what may be 
meant by Phrygia and Galatia is partly due to the history of central Asia 
Minor, which was for centuries conditioned by a series of invasions. We 
do not know, though archaeology will probably reveal before long, to what 
race the earliest inhabitants of central Asia Minor belonged. They may 
have been members of what is commonly called the Mediterranean race, 
but at present we know little about them, and though we may discover 
some details, it is very probable that we shall never know with certainty 
the nature of their language. The first event of which we have reasonably 
accurate information is that the Hittites, who were probably not aborigines, 
were the lords of Asia Minor in the third millennium before Christ. In- 
formation about the Hittites is accumulating almost daily, and though it 
would be improper to say that they were an Indo-European race, some of 
them certainly used an Indo-European language for official purposes. 
Their capital, or at all events one of their chief cities, was at Pteria, 
perhaps better known under its Turkish name Boghaz-Keui. 

The Hittites carried on alternating war and commerce with Egypt and 
Assyria. In the second millennium before Christ their western frontier was 
invaded by the Greeks, and few things have been more romantic in the 
history of archaeology than the discovery on Hittite monuments of probable 
references to the Achaeans and to the names of heroes whom we had been 
inclined to regard as mythical rather than historical. A similar invasion 
of Asia Minor was carried out very successfully at the same time, or a 
little earlier, by the Phrygians, who came from the Balkan district, and 
conquered the Hittites at least so far as to occupy the western part of 
Asia Minor up to Iconium. The remaining power of the Hittites in eastern 
Asia Minor disappeared in the days of the Babylonian and Persian Empires, 
which, from the point of view of Asia Minor, may be regarded as invasions 
coming from the south and covering the middle of the first millennium. 

- hae * ae 


Then the tide turned again, and the country was once more swept by 
invading Greeks under Alexander of Macedonia and his successors. 

Just at this time, about the year 278, a new invasion began. The 
Gauls coming from the north were then invading all the Mediterranean 
lands, and they came into Asia Minor partly as invaders, partly as mer- 
cenaries. They overran Phrygia, and ultimately established a kingdom 
with Ancyra (the modern Angora) as its capital; their language was akin 
to Welsh and other Celtic dialects. Thus part of Phrygia ceased to be 
Phrygian, though the Galatians seem to have adopted the Phrygian cult 
of the Great Mother. Owing to Greek influence the territory dominated 
by the Gauls was called by outsiders ‘ Galatia,’ just as owing to Latin 
influence the similar kingdom in the West was called ‘ Gallia.’ It is not 
necessary to go into the details of the history of these Gauls. They were 
constantly fighting with all their neighbours, and especially with the Pontic 
kings to the north. 

In 121 3B.c. the Romans declared Galatia free, which meant subject 
to Rome instead of Pontus. In Pompey’s reorganization of the east 
Galatia was put under three chiefs, of whom the survivor and ultimate 
king of the whole district was Deiotarus. He was succeeded in 40 B.c. 
by Castor, but Mark Antony reorganized the whole district, making Castor 
king of Galatia, Amyntas, formerly secretary to Deiotarus, king of Pisidia, 
and Polemon king of Lycaonia. The capitals of these three kingdoms 
were Ancyra, Pisidian Antioch, and Iconium. In 36 B.c. Castor died, and 
Amyntas was given Lycaonia and Galatia, from which he now took his title 
as king, Polemon being compensated by appointment to the kingdom of 
Pontus. Amyntas appears to have been a competent ruler, and increased 
his kingdom by the addition of Pamphylia and part of Cilicia. In 25 B.c. 
he was killed, and the Romans took over his kingdom as a province, to 
which they gave the name of Provincia Galatia. The province of Galatia 
thus became the Roman name of large tracts of land which had formerly 
belonged to other kingdoms, especially to Phrygia and to Lycaonia. It 
was, of course, very much larger than Galatia proper, and in large parts of 
it there were no Galatians at all. 

Thus, to return to Acts xvi. 6, in the first century ‘ Galatia’ or ‘Galatian Petey . 
territory ’ might conceivably have had any one of three meanings: (i.) Ante it = 
the old kingdom of Galatia ; (ii.) the larger and indistinctly defined terri- 
tory where Gaelic was spoken ; (iii.) the Roman province of Galatia, which 
did not coincide with either (i.) or (ii.). 

The older commentators interpreted ‘the Galatian district’ in Acts Lightfoot. 
xvi. 6 as the ‘ kingdom of Galatia.’ Lightfoot’s exposition of this theory 
is the best and most accessible.1 He takes Asia to mean the province, 
and explains tv Ppvyiav kai adAatrixjvy ywpayv as the country which had 
once been Phrygia and afterwards Galatia. He thinks that Paul may 
have gone as far as Ancyra, and that he may have intended to visit the 
eastern part of Bithynia. The decisive objections to this theory are that 
it was three hundred years since ‘ Galatia’ had been ‘ Phrygia,’ and that 

1 J. B. Lightfoot, Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians. 


Ancyra is so far from Mysia that to describe it as xara tiv Muciay is 

Ramsay. A more attractive suggestion was made by Sir W. M. Ramsay in 1892 
in a course of lectures at Oxford, and published in 1893 with the title 
The Church in the Roman Empire before 170 4.D. Few more brilliantly 
attractive books have ever been written, and to the present writer this 
book and its sequel, St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, were a 
revelation of the possibilities opened by biblical archaeology. Ramsay 
thought that the source of this part of Acts was characterized by a care- 
fully accurate use of Roman official phraseology, and explained Acts xvi. 6 
in the light of this theory. He took ‘ Asia’ to mean the province, thought 
that the Galatia implied by Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians was the district 
of Lystra, Derbe, Iconium, and Antioch, which were within the province, 
and explained tv Ppvyiav kat T'adatixjvy ywpav as meaning the regio 
Phrygia Galatica, which was, he thought, the official name of the district 
of Lystra and the other cities mentioned. 

The Epistle The difficulty of deciding who were the recipients of the Epistle to the 

a ale Galatians is of course separate from the interpretation of Acts xvi. 6. It 
would be out of place to discuss it in full in this note, but it may be said 
that the problem resolves itself into three subordinate questions. 

(i.) Were those to whom the Epistle was sent Galatians in the ethno- 
logical sense or were they Greeks, or at least Greek-speaking persons, 
living in a district called Galatia ? The fact that the Epistle is written in 
Greek, not in Gaelic, at least shows that they understood Greek, though 
it does not follow that they were not Gauls by birth. 

(ii.) Would persons not Galatians by birth (and the inhabitants of 
Lystra, etc., were certainly not Galatians by blood) have cared to be 
addressed as Galatians merely because they lived in a province of that 
name? So far as I can see we have no means of answering this question. 
It is futile to discuss it on the basis of modern analogies, which can generally 
be made to prove whichever view the writer prefers, but it seems very 
improbable that Greek-speaking Phrygians or Lycaonians would have 
described themselves as Galatians—a markedly national word—merely 
because for purposes of government the Romans treated their country as 
part of a complex to which they had given the name of Galatia. 

(iii.) The fact that Acts does not describe any missionary work among 
Galatians loses its importance when we compare Acts’ account of Paul 
in Corinth with the information derived from the Epistles. See note on 
Acts xix. 1-20. It is abundantly clear that in dealing with Paul, just as in 
dealing with the early church, Luke gave a selection, not a complete 
statement of the facts. 

Phrygia But if the identification of the ‘ Galatians’ of the Epistle be foreign 
Galatica. +9 the present purpose, the interpretation of tiv Ppvyiav Kat Tadarixijy 
xépayv is, on the contrary, extremely important for the meaning of Acts. 
Ramsay holds that when the province of Galatia was organized its com- 
ponent parts were called regiones and described by their original names 
with the addition of the adjective Galatian; so that there was Pontus 
Galaticus, Phrygia Galatica, and so on. Pontus Galaticus is attested by 

Ee — 


inscriptions and by Ptolemy,’ but there is very little evidence (apparently 
only Galen) for Phrygia Asiana, and none for Phrygia Galatica. It is true 
that Ramsay quotes the Menologium Sirletianum for Phrygia Galatica, 
but to do so he emends the text, which is ‘‘ Hi sancti martyres fuerunt sub 
Diocletiano imperatore in urbe Antiochiae Pisidiae ex regione Phrygiae 
Galaciae sub praeside Magno.” Ramsay emends Galaciae to Galaticae, and 
so gets evidence for Phrygia Galatica. But surely there is no justification 
for this emendation. The natural construction would be to take Galaciae 
(the spelling of which is orthographical fashion, not a mistake) as de- 
pendent on praeside—‘ when Magnus was governor of Galatia.’ 

Admittedly Phrygia Galatica would have been a natural term for 
officials to use for the Phrygian districts of the province of Galatia. But 
that is not quite the real point. Would anyone, not a Roman official, 
have used the phrase? To the inhabitants Lystra and Derbe were 
Lycaonian cities, Iconium probably and Antioch certainly were Phrygian 
cities, and it is very doubtful if anyone except an official would have 
troubled to qualify the statement. The Greeks living in such cities were 
of course Greeks, and would not have called themselves Phrygians or 
Lycaonians, but neither would they have called themselves Galatians. 

There is another objection. Phrygia Galatica may have been the 
official title of the part of Phrygia incorporated in the province of Galatia. 
As has been said, there is no evidence for this, but it would not be sur- 
prising if evidence were found. It would be analogous to the undoubted 
use of Pontus Galaticus. But why should this be rendered in Greek by 
Ppvyia kai Vadarixy xwpa rather than by 7) TaAatixy Ppvyia? Ramsay 
indeed argues that xwpa represents an official use of regio to describe the 
subdivisions of the province. But there is no evidence for this use in 
Galatia except Ramsay’s claim that an inscription at Antioch 2 which 
reads exatovtapxnv [?]eyewvapiov should be completed by reading a p 
for the missing letter, as Sterrett first thought, and not a A as he after- 
wards preferred. But Acyewvdprov is as natural a title for a centurion as 
peyewvdprov is unusual. 

Moreover, on this point we ought to be guided by Roman practice in 
Asia. This province was, we are told by Cassiodorus (s. anno 679), divided 
by Sulla into regiones, but Cicero uses civitates not regiones in describing 
this division, Appian says that it was kata 7éXes, and CIG. 3902 speaks 
of diocxyjoers, obviously in the sense of regiones. It seems clear that a 
regio was not an ancient kingdom but the district surrounding a prominent 
city. It is rendered in Greek in several ways. 

Thus the analogy of Asia gives no support to the view that in 
Acts xvi. 6 x«pa. is likely to be the Greek rendering of regio used in the 
official sense of a division of a province, corresponding to an ancient 

Finally, perhaps decisive against Ramsay’s theory is the fact that if 
9) Ppvyia cat TaXdarixi) ydpa means the regio of the province of Galatia 
called Phrygia Galatica, it is impossible that Paul’s route through this 

1 Ramsay, The Church in the Roman Empire, p. 81. 
2 Published by Sterrett in his Epigraphical Journey in Asia Minor. 

Paul’s more 


district brought him out anywhere near Mysia. Ramsay has to argue 
that Paul, after passing through Phrygia Galatica, journeyed through the 
province of Asia until he came to the neighbourhood of Mysia, for though 
the Spirit prevented him from preaching in Asia, it did not prevent him 
from travelling through it. Without being impossible this seems to me 
very unlikely. The natural meaning of Acts is that because Paul could 
not preach in ‘ Asia’ he changed his plans and went through Phrygia, etc. 
—which by implication was not ‘ Asia.’ Moreover, though Ramsay 
thinks that the order of words in xvi. 6, not the construction of the sentence, 
gives the order of events, it is hard to agree that this is probable. His 
theory demands that Paul first passed through Phrygia Galatica and then 
was prevented by the Spirit from preaching in Asia. But the natural 
interpretation of the Greek is the opposite. 

“Therefore, attractive though Ramsay’s theory be,! it is probably un- 

A more probable view seems to be that when Paul reached Iconium 
he meant to go along the main road to the Greeks of the Lycus Valley 
and the coast, the district which Luke calls Asia. But he had a revelation 
which made him change his mind, and he went north through Phrygia 
and territory where Galatians were numerous. If this view be accepted 
‘Phrygia and Galatian country’ means territory in which sometimes 
Phrygian and sometimes Gaelic was the language of the villagers. His 
route may have been through Laodicea, Amorion, and Orkistos (surely a 
Gaelic place) to Nakoleia and perhaps to Dorylaeum. Either Nakoleia 
or Dorylaeum might be said to be kata tiv Mvuoiav. He was also on 
the direct road to Nicaea, and certainly from Nakoleia and probably from 
Dorylaeum there was a straight road to Troas, ‘skirting’ Mysia—if that 
be the meaning of zapeAOwv. In one or the other of these places he was 
once more prevented by revelation from working as he had intended— 
this time in Bithynia—and so turned to the left and went through Mysia 
to Troas. 

This theory does not differ essentially from Ramsay’s as to the route 
which Paul took, but gives a different explanation of the phrases in xvi. 6. 
It implies that Paul was influenced by language rather than political 
boundaries, and that Luke similarly describes the districts traversed in 
terms of language rather than in official Roman terminology. Paul was 
looking for places where he could preach intelligibly, that is to say, in 
Greek. A Greek audience could be found in Antioch of Pisidia and in 
Iconium. But these places were closed for any renewed preaching, and 
he had the choice of going beyond them to the great Greek cities of ‘ Asia,’ 
or of going north to the equally Greek cities of Bithynia—Nicaea or Nico- 
media. ‘ Asia’ was nearer, and more attractive, and he first thought of 

1 In my Earlier Epistles of St. Paul I was quite convinced by it. I thought 
that Paul probably kept south of the Sultan Dagh, and went up through 
Kinnaborion to Kotiaeon. Nor did any reviewers help my conversion, which 
is mainly due to the impression, made by the minute-labour of writing the 
commentary, that Luke does not specially use Roman official language and that 
Ramsay’s theory makes as many difficulties as it solves. 



going there. Possibly Metropolis and Apameia were sufficiently Greek 
for him to have thought of them as belonging in a cultural sense to ‘ Asia,’ 
though they were usually reckoned as Phrygian. When revelation made 
him give up this plan, he turned northward and had to go through a non- 
Greek country where the language mainly alternated between Phrygian 
and Gaelic. Just when he was near the great cities of Bithynia, he was 
again stopped. Not until he reached Corinth? could he find a city with 
the three necessary but complex conditions for extensive and settled 
preaching—a large Greek-speaking population (which must, however, not 

be too Greek-thinking), prosperous Greek-speaking synagogues to ensure ~ 

an initial hearing for him, and a sufficiently developed anti-Judaism to 
render Jewish hostility relatively unimportant when he was successful in 
diverting ‘ God-fearers ’ from the Synagogue to the Church. 

There remains yet one other way of dealing with this problem. What- 
ever theory be adopted to explain Acts xvi. 6, it remains almost unique 
for its omission to mention the cities through which Paul passed. He 
cannot have gone from Lystra to Troas without going through a number 
of well-known cities, whatever route he followed, and Luke’s habit is to 
mention the cities through which Paul went, even when he has nothing 
more to say about them. 

This is a strong point in favour of Schwartz’s theory that the two 
missionary journeys are really one. According to this view the visit to 
Jerusalem to relieve the famine (Acts xi. 30 and xii. 25) is the same as 
the visit to Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council (Acts xv.), and in Addi- 
tional Note 16 it has been argued that this is probably right. But Acts 
xi. 30, xii. 25, and xv. are all immediately followed by accounts of 
a missionary journey. If the visits to Jerusalem are the same, argues 
Schwartz, so also must be the journeys which follow; Luke has merely 
made two journeys out of one and has added an end and a beginning at 
the appropriate points. According to this theory xiv. 21-28 is an editorial 
patch, put in in order to bring Paul back to Antioch and Jerusalem, and 

1 In Lystra and in Derbe the villagers appear to have spoken Lycaonian. 
It survived as a spoken language at least until the sixth century. It is mentioned 
in the life of Martha, the mother of Symeon Thaumastorites (cf. A.S.S. May 5, 
p. 413). Also in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople in a.p. 536 reference 
is made to two Lycaonian monasteries in Constantinople—that of Modestus 
and that of Eutychius. (See Mansi, viii. 1055, and cf. K. Holl’s ‘ Das Fortleben 
der Volkssprachen in Kleinasien in nachchristlichen Zeit,’ in Hermes, xliii. (1908) 
pp. 240 ff.) Phrygian was probably spoken in Iconium; it was an Indo-Euro- 
pean language and survived in outlying districts for some centuries. In all 
the cities there was naturally some knowledge of Greek, though probably not 
enough to reward any prolonged stay by Paul. But it is probable that in the 
country (7 x#pa as opposed to ras 7é\ers) Greek was of little use. In any case 
the lower classes were too hostile. In Macedonia there was too much Jewish 
influence; in Athens too much really Greek scepticism; only in Corinth was 
there that peculiar Greco-Oriental stratum which was satisfactory for Paul’s 



xv. 36-xvi. 9 is a corresponding patch, added in order to bring him back 
from Jerusalem to Troas. Both patches are marked by vagaries and 
absence of detail. 

The main objection to this theory is that it changes the story as told 
by Luke more than we should like. For this reason I have struggled 
against accepting it, but find myself less and less able to see good reasons 
against it. Probably it is the most likely guess in a complex of problems 
which will never be settled quite satisfactorily. 

If it be adopted, its corollaries should be noted. It implies the follow- 
ing smaller points : 

(i.) Luke’s account of the ‘first journey’ must have been an Antiochian- 
Barnabas source, rather than a Pauline source. This obviously explains 
the general tenor of the narrative far better than the theory that Luke 
had a single source and deliberately cut it into two. A Barnabas source 
(which need not mean that Barnabas had anything to do with writing it) 
would naturally not contain the further adventures of Paul. All that 
Luke did was to bring Paul into the end of it, and not notice or not know 
that Paul and Barnabas separated at Lystra+on their return journey to 
that city. He then also put in a short account of a journey across Asia 
Minor, of which he had heard something, in order to link up his narrative 
with the true Pauline story as given in the ‘ we-source,’ where the charac- 
teristic fullness of detail as to the route followed really begins. 

The main point therefore is that Luke had two sources : (a) a Barnabas- 
‘Antiochian source, which gave him the material for chapters xiii.-xiv. 20. 
This brought Barnabas back to Antioch, but did not say explicitly what 
Paul did. (b) A Pauline source, including the ‘ we-document,’ whether 
written by Luke or used by him, which gave a detailed account of Paul’s 
journey from Troas to Corinth and Ephesus. It did not explain how Paul 
reached Troas. To bring together these sources Luke put in a few connect- 
ing paragraphs characterized by a geographical vagueness quite different 
from either source, and presenting enormous difficulties to any commentator 
who tries to extract from them a precision of detail which Luke never 
put into them. 

(ii.) There is some difficulty in seeing what were the facts about Paul’s 
quarrel with Barnabas. As it stands in Acts at present, it is tempting to 
identify it with the quarrel described in Gal. ii. 11. But this can hardly 
be right, nor do the details agree, for in Acts the question is about Mark, 
and in Galatians it is about intercourse with the Gentiles. Perhaps Luke 
knew from his Antiochian source that Paul and Barnabas had quarrelled 
in Antioch, and thought erroneously that this was the same quarrel as 
that about Mark which had prevented Barnabas from coming to Troas 
with Paul. 

(iii.) An extreme possibility may be mentioned. I have never felt quite 
so certain as both Mr. Emmet and Professor Windisch were in Vol. II. 
that Luke knew nothing about the Pauline Epistles. Admittedly he made 
little or no use of them; but it would be an extraordinary thing that 

1 Or possibly Iconium, Derbe, or Antioch—the exact point is immaterial. 


anyone who so clearly was either a member of the Pauline circle, or had 
access to its traditions, should have been ignorant of letters which were 
well known both in Rome and Antioch! so soon after Acts was written. 

It seems to me not impossible that he knew the Epistles, and perhaps 
even thought that Christians were gaining a wrong impression of the work 
done by Paul, who was unfairly represented by letters written contro- 
versially and for special purposes. Is it an accident that he describes 
Paul’s first dealings with the Romans, the Corinthians, the Ephesians, and 
the Thessalonians ? If it be not, it is possibly justifiable to go a step 
further, and emphasize the fact that Galatia is the remaining church which 
Paul founded and wrote to. If Luke knew this and had any interest in 
the foundation of the Pauline churches, he may have noted that the 
narrative, as it was in his sources, gave no place after xvi. 6 for the founda- 
tion of the Galatian churches. Possibly he thought that it belonged to 
the period, just before Paul went to Europe, for which his two main 
sources gave him no information. Moreover it is not impossible that he 
was right. 

3. The Route of Paul’s ‘ Third Journey’ 

Compared with the complexities of the ‘second journey,’ this offers The ‘third’ 
few difficulties. There are indeed only two. ieee 

(i.) The meaning of 77)v Tadatixjy xwpav kai Ppvyiav in Acts xviii. 23. 
Formerly ? I interpreted this in accordance with Ramsay’s theory. Accord- 
ing to this the province of Galatia was divided into regiones ; the part which 
once had been in the kingdom of Lycaonia was called Lycaonia Galatica, 
the remainder of Lycaonia, which was in Paul’s time ruled by Antiochus, 
being called Lycaonia Antiochiana. Similarly the old kingdom of Phrygia 
was divided between the provinces of Asia and Galatia and called Phrygia 
Asiana and Phrygia Galatica. Thus Paul passed first through Lycaonia 
Antiochiana, then through Lycaonia Galatica, Phrygia Galatica, and Phrygia 
Asiana successively. This theory certainly fits the facts. Paul doubtless 
came through the ‘ Cilician gate’ above Tarsus, and the direct road to 
Ephesus passed through these districts. 

Whether this is exactly what Luke meant is another question. It calls 
for a remarkable mixture of terminology ; 7) D'aAatvxi) xwpa is (according 
to it) a strict use of Roman phraseology, but Ppvyia is used in the 
ethnological sense and covers two Roman regiones in two separate 
provinces. Moreover it is hard to see why Lycaonia Antiochiana is not 
mentioned. The natural way to have expressed the facts called for by 
Ramsay’s theory would have been dvepxopevos kabeEjs tiv AvKaoviav 

(both divisions) kai tv Ppvyiay (both divisions). 

A different explanation may therefore be considered favourably. 
Luke’s habit is not to repeat phrases exactly, but to vary them. The 
variation is a matter of style, and does not imply a change of meaning. 
Here he is summarizing a long journey which covers territory that Paul 

1 Testibus Clement and Ignatius. 
2 The Earlier Epistles of St. Paul, pp. 260 f. 




had already travelled through before. He varies the phrase for Phrygia 
and Galatia, but probably only means that he again went to the places 
in Galatia and Phrygia which he had visited before. Which these places 
were depends on the view taken of xvi. 6. 

(ii.) The meaning of Ta dvwrepixad pépy in xix. 1. This passage cannot 
be dissociated from the previous one: Ramsay?’ thinks it merely means 
that Paul came by a road over the hills instead of by the main road. The 
alternative and more probable view is that dueA@dvra ra dvwrepiKd pépy 
refers back, with variation of phrase, to the Svepxdpevos KabeEns tiv 
Tadarixiy xdpav kat Ppvyiav in xviii. 23, so that Ta, dvwrepiKd pépy and 
tTHv Tadarixjvy xépav kat Ppvyiav mean the same district. The pro- 
blem cannot be separated from the interpretation of xvi. 6 and its solution 
can never be certain, because dvwrepixd is a vague phrase. It means 
‘higher,’ and its exact significance depends on the context. It may be 
higher up a river, or a mountain, or from the coast. In relation to 
Ephesus the last seems somewhat the most probable, but the point is 
uncertain. Happily, unlike the obscurity of xvi. 6, it is not really very 

Nore XIX. Taz Unknown Gop 
By Kirsopr LAKE 

The evidence concerning the altar ‘to the unknown God’ in Athens 
can best be divided into the two classes of (i.) heathen analogies and (ii.) 
early Christian exegesis. 

(i.) Heathen Analogies 

(a) Pausanias i. 1. 4 says that on the road from Phalerum to Athens 
there were Bwyol Oedv Te dvopafopéevwv ayvéotwv Kai jpwwv Kal Taidwv 
Tov Oncéws Kal Badjpov. 

(b) Pausanias v. 14. 8 says that at Olympia by the great altar of Zeus 
there were other altars, including an altar ‘to unknown gods’—zpds 
adT@ & éoTtiv ayvdotwv Oeav Bopés, Kal peTa TOUTOV Kabapoiov Atds 

(c) An inscription was published in 1910 by H. Hepding from 
Pergamos in the precinct of Demeter, which probably belongs to the 
second century A.D. and may be plausibly reconstructed 

QEOILAT (vworors) 
but might equally be read Oeois dywtdros. (For a discussion of the 
reconstruction see especially Birt, Rhein. Mus. f. Phil., 1914; Weinreich, 
‘De dis ignotis quaestiones’ in Archiv f. Religionswiss. xviii. (1915) pp. 
29 ff., O. Kern, Hermes, xlvi. pp. 434f, and Deissman, Paulus, App. IL.) 

1 St. Paul the Traveller and Roman Citizen, p. 265. 


(d) Diogenes Laertius, i. 110, writing early in the third century, piogenes 

describes how in time of pestilence the Athenians sent for Epimenides Mertius. 
the Cretan to help them fulfil the command of the oracle to offer 
atonement for the city. Epimenides took black and white sheep to the 
Areopagus, and the story goes on: KdxeiOev ciacvev iévas of BovrowvTo, 
Tporrdgas Tots dkoAovGos evOa av KatakAivor avtav exaotov Ovew TH 
mpoonkovTe Gep, Kai ottw Anka Td Kakdv. OOev Ere kal viv éoTu ebpeiv 
Kara ods Sipous Tov ’APnvaiov Bopors dvovipors, drduvnpa ths Tére 
yevopevns e&tAdoews. Birt (Rhein. Mus. f. Phil., 1914) has shown good 
grounds for thinking (as is wholly probable in itself) that Diogenes was 
repeating an earlier tradition. To this there may be a reference in 
Aristotle, "A@nvaiwy IloAiteia, of which the first lines mention the 
purification of the city by Epimenides the Cretan. Plutarch also (Solon 
xii.) says that after the Cylonian pollution and the banishment of the 
family of Megacles the Athenians were attacked by the Megarians, and 
the city became a prey to superstitious panic. The seers declared that 
their sacrifices proved that the city was polluted and needed expiation. 
For this purpose Epimenides was summoned. He helped Solon to 
reform the religion of the city, and Plutarch continues: 7d 6€ péyurrov 
ihagpois Tit Kai Kkabappois Kat idpioert Katopyidoas Kal Kafoowdcas 
tThv modu trjKoov Tod Sikaiov Kat padrdAov evre.OH mpds Spdvoray 

(e) Philostratus in the Life of Apollonius of Tyana, vi. 3. 5, tells the Philo- 
story of a certain Timasion who had left his home to escape the incon- x 
venient affection of his stepmother, which was like that of Phaedra for 
Hippolytus. Unlike Hippolytus, however, he had not insulted Aphrodite, 
but had consistently sacrificed to her. In this respect, said Apollonius, 
he was wiser than Hippolytus: kal adrd dé 7d Sia Be BAjorOa mpos ovTiva 
67 TOV Gedy, dorEep mpds THY “Agpoditny 6 ‘InwéXvros, ovk avi 
cwppoovns * cwppoverrepov yap 7d wept rdvrwv Oedv ed Aéyerv, Kal 
tavra “AOjvyot ob Kat dyviorwv Sarpovev Bopot ®pvvtra It should 
be noted that the phrase kat ratra “A@jvyot means ‘especially in 
Athens,’ and the point of the whole is that Hippolytus, who was living 
in Athens, was peculiarly foolish to insult the gods in a place which was 
so devoted to them (and they to it) that there were even altars to 
unknown gods, The reference is adequately annotated by the passages 
from Pausanias and Diogenes Laertius given above. 

There is therefore no reason to suppose, as Norden has suggested, 
that the reference to Athens shows that the passage is taken from an 
episode in Athens in the supposed ‘Damis’ source of Philostratus, 
the existence of which seems disproved by E. Meyer in Hermes, 1917, 
pp. 399 ff. (see E. Norden, Agnostos Theos, pp. 35 ff.; Corssen, ZNTW.,, 
1913, pp. 309 ff.; Harnack, ‘Die Rede des Paulus in Athen usw.’ in 
PU 4: X525%. (1913) p. 39; Birt, Rhein. Mus., 1914, pp. 3465 ff.). 

(f) There is also one other piece of evidence which has sometimes but Pseudo- 
erroneously been alleged as heathen testimony to an altar to ‘an unknown Via”. 
God’ in Athens. The main topic in the Philopatris, ascribed to Lucian, 
is the worship of the unknown God who has an altar in Athens. If the 






treatise were really Lucian’s this would be extremely important, but the 
Philopatris is obviously a Christian document of a much later date, and 
is now generally assigned to the tenth century (see Krumbacher, Byzan- 
tinische Literaturgeschichte, pp. 188 f.). 

The significant point in this evidence is that it establishes the 
existence in Athens and at Olympia of altars to unknown gods. The 
reconstruction of the Pergamene inscription is too doubtful to be used 
with confidence. The story in Diogenes Laertius gives at least one 
reason why such altars were erected. The chief value of the story in 
Philostratus is that it shows that the anonymous altars of Athens were 
well known, and suggests that they were unusual elsewhere. There is 
no evidence for an altar to any one god who was specially called ‘the 
unknown,’ but the story in Diogenes Laertius suggests that the singular 
may have been used in the formula 7 rpooyjxovrt Gem, meaning ‘to the 
unknown god who is concerned in the matter’; dyvéatw Oe@ would be 
a loose but not very inaccurate paraphrase. I do not see why Wiken- 
hauser and others are so certain that t@ mpooyjKovTs was not used, 
though the text of Diogenes does not necessarily imply that it was. 

It is perhaps noteworthy that the proper Greek idiom for an 
inscription on an altar usually puts the name of the god in the genitive, 
not in the dative as Luke does. The dative does, however, come in the 
Pergamene inscription in the second century, as well as in Tertullian, 
Jerome, and Euthalius. Apparently the fashion changed. 

(ii.) Christian Exegesis 

(a) Tertullian in Ad nationes ii. 9 says: “sed et Romanorum deos 
Varro bifariam disposuit, in certos et electos. Tantam vanitatem! quid 
enim erat illis cum incertis si certos habebant? Nisi si Attico stupore 
recipere voluerunt, nam et Athenis ara est inscripta: ignotis deis.” 

The text of this passage is clearly defective, and there is only one 
extant manuscript. We may confidently accept the emendation of the 
first editor, Jacobus Gothofredus (1625), who printed trifariam for 
bifartam and inserted incertos between wm certos and et, but Attico 
stupore recipere is more difficult. Reifferscheid prints Atticos stupores, 
following the 1634 edition of Nic. Rigaltius, and Norden emends recipere 
into recinere. But for the present purpose it is enough that Tertullian 
clearly knew a tradition of an altar in Athens to ‘unknown gods.’ He 
is making no special allusion to Acts, but rather regards these altars as a 
well-known characteristic of Attic practice. The same comment holds of 
another passage (Adv. Marcion. i.9) where he says: “Invenio plane ignotis 
deis aras prostitutas, sed Attica idololatria est; item incertis deis, sed 
superstitio Romana est.” This leaves but little doubt that Tertullian 
quoted ‘unknown gods’ as a typically Attic phrase, and knew that it 
was generally so recognized. 

(6b) Clement of Alexandria (Strom. v. 82) and Origen (in Joh. x. 5) 
quote Acts, but do not discuss the question of the altar or its inscription. 

(c) Jerome flatly asserts that Paul changed the plural ‘ gods’ into the 

ey > 


singular ‘god.’ In the Comment. in Titum, i. 12, he says: “nec mirum si 
pro opportunitate temporis gentilium poetarum versibus abutatur, cum 
etiam de inscriptione arae aliqua commutans ad Athenienses locutus sit, 
pertransiens enim, inquit, et contemplans culturas vestras inveni et aram 
in qua superscriptum est ‘ignoto deo,’ quod itaque ignorantes colitis hoc 
ego annuntio vobis. Inscriptio autem arae non ita erat, ut Paulus 
asseruit, ‘ignoto deo,’ sed ita: ‘Diis Asiae et Europae et Africae diis 
ignotis et peregrinis.’ Verum quia Paulus non pluribus diis indigebat 
sed uno tantum ignoto deo, singulari verbo usus est,” etc. 

The same inscription (to the gods of Asia, etc.) is quoted in the Euthalius. 

Euthalian apparatus to Acts, but there the last phrase “diis ignotis et 
peregrinis” is changed to the singular, doubtless in accommodation to the 
text of Acts. It reads: Qeots *Acias kat Evpéarns cat ArBins, Ged Te 
ayvéotm Kat Eevp* Tode 7d exlypappa IlatAos dvayvots ednpoyopei. 
Unfortunately the date of ‘ Euthalius’ is wholly uncertain ; in its present 
form the Euthalian apparatus may be a late composition, even if the 
original form is early, and no one knows which parts are early and 
which are late. 

The Euthalian tradition is copied by the Catena of Andreas which 
exists in three forms, published under the names of Theophylact and 
Oecumenius. (See Migne, PG. cxxv. pp. 745 ff, 997 ff., and PG. exviii. 
pp. 237 ff.) 

(d) A line of interpretation, which may come from the same source 
as Jerome’s, but cannot be derived from him and may be entirely inde- 
pendent, is found in Didymus of Alexandria, according to a fragment of 
a catena on the epistles published in Mai’s Nova Bibitotheca Patrum, iv. 
2, p. 139. This, commenting on 2 Cor. x. 5 (aixpadwrtifovtes mav 
vonpa eis THY Vrakonv TOV Xpwrtod), says: Sbvarov éxAaPetv Kai ovTws ° 
wav vonpa Td Orws rote ev Tive SidacKkadia hepdpevov dvdyKy kat Bia 
petorxifovres mpds Td Teivas Drakovoa TH Xpirto hepdpevov’ obtw yap 
To “A@jvnow dvakeipevov Bwyd exiypapya eudaivoyv roddOv Gewv 
vonpa éeXkvoas 6 TadTa ypapwv peTHveyKev eis TOV povov GAnOvdv Gedy, 
pjcas ov otv ayvootytes edoeBeire kTX. Which may be bad exegesis 
of 2 Corinthians, but at least shows that Didymus regarded it as 

incontestable that there were altars at Athens to unknown gods in , 

the plural, but not to an unknown god in the singular. 

(e) A curiously wide-spread but late tradition affirming that the 
altar to the unknown god was connected with a special emergency in 
the history of Athens can be traced back partly to the tradition about 
Epimenides given by Diogenes Laertius, partly to another story in 

Herodotus vi. 105 tells the story of Pheidippides, the Marathon 
runner, who was first sent to Sparta to suggest a treaty. On the way 
he met the god Pan, who complained that in spite of his constant help 
the Athenians never gave him any worship: PBdécavra 5¢ robvoya Tod 
Pedirrisew tov Udva "APynvaiows keetoar drayyeiAat, Sudte Ewvrod 
ovdcuiav eripeAcinv rovedvtas eédvTos evvdov “AOnvatows Kal toAAayy 
yevopévov ode dn xpyoipov ta S ere Kal évopévov. Kal TatTa pev 







’"AOnvaio. katacrévrov ogi eb 75n TOV Tpynypatov mictetoavTes eivat 
adyGéa iSptcavro id tH AxpomwoXt Ilavds ipdv Kat adrov dard Tavrns 
THS ayyedins Ovoinor érereiowwt Kai Aapardds tAdoKovra. (Cf. also 
Pausanias i. 28. 4 and viii, 54. 6.) 

This story first reappears in extant Christian writings in Isidore of 
Pelusium’s letter to Hero (Migne, PG. 1xxviii. 1128) where the writer clearly 
confuses it with the story in Diogenes Laertius. After telling the story 
of Pan’s meeting with ‘ Philippides’ (as he and many others write the 
name of the runner) he continues: vixjoavres obv Bwpdv gxoddunoav 
kat eréypaav: “Ayviorw Oe, dAdo dé hace Ste Aoipds KaTEerKnev 
’"AOjvage Kal eis TorovTov adtods eféxavoev Os pynde Tv A|erToTATwV 
owddvev avéxerGat, Tods vopsfopevovs odv Oeots eavtav OepamedvovTes 
ovdev drdvavto. évvoncavtes obv OTe éotw iows Oeds Tis, dv adrol 
Katédirov ayépartov, 6 Tov Aowdv Katamréupas, vadv Seypdpevor 
kat Bwpodv éervypdpavres* “Ayvéotw OeG Kat Oicavtes edOéws eOepa- 

(f) The discovery of the commentary of Isho‘dad shows that the 
source used by Isidore may have been Theodore of Mopsuestia, who is 
quoted by Isho‘dad without the mistake as to the altar, but in a form 
which renders that mistake quite natural. He says: 

“ About this altar, on which was written, To the hidden God, Mar 
Ephraim and others say, that want of rain and earthquakes some- 
times happened at Athens; and when they took counsel to make prayers 

_ collectively every day, they changed the altars of all their gods; and 

when altars were at an end and there were no helps, they overturned 
them and threw them down; and again they congregated and took 
counsel, saying, If there are no others, who is this one who does not 
cease to trouble us? and they carved and set up altars to the hidden 
God, whoever He was; and when the mercies of Grace revealed about 
the anguish of their minds, He sent them help. But the Interpreter 
says that the Athenians were once upon a time at war with their 
enemies, and the Athenians retreated from them in defeat; then a 
certain Demon appeared and said unto them, I have never been 
honoured by you as I ought; and because I am angry with you, 
therefore you have had a defeat from your enemies. Then the 
Athenians were afraid, and raised to him the well-known altar; and 
because they dreaded lest this very thing should happen to them, having 
secretly neglected [one] who was unknown to them, they erected for 
themselves one altar more, and wrote upon it, Of the Unknown and 
Hidden God; and when they wished to say this, that though there is 
a God in whom we do not believe, we raise this altar to His honour, 
that He may be reconciled to us, although He is not honoured as 
known; therefore Paul did well to take a reason from this, and said 
before them, This hidden God to whom ye have raised an altar without 
knowing Him, I have come to declare unto you. There is no God 
whom ye know not, except the true God, who hath appointed the times 
by His command, and hath put bounds,” ete. (See Mrs. Gibson’s edition 
of Isho‘dad, in Horae Semiticae, x. p. 28.) 


Here the ‘well-known altar’ means the altar to Pan, and it is 
distinguished from the altar to the unknown God, but a careless reader 
might easily make the mistake which appears in Isidore of Pelusium, 
especially since the name of Pan is not mentioned. 

Less complete and more confused versions of the same story are found 
in Bar Salibi and Bar Hebraeus, who are almost certainly dependent on 
Tsho ‘dad. 

(g) Finally, in a late and historically worthless Pseudo-Athanasian Pseudo- — 
treatise, De templo Athenarum,} is a curious legend that the altar of A%@nssius. 
the unknown God owed its inscription to a certain Apollo, who 
told the seven sages of Greece that by it he intended the Trinity of 
which the Logos was to be born of a virgin named Mary. 

It will be seen that none of this evidence is of any real value, and it Conclusions. 
throws into relief the implication of Tertullian and the clear statements 
of Didymus and Jerome that there was no altar to ‘an unknown God,’ 
but only to ‘unknown gods” This makes all the more plausible the 
suggestion that the writer of Acts knew the altars t¢ mpoojKovti Ged 
referred to by Diogenes Laertius, that dyvdarw Ged is his (or possibly 
Paul’s) paraphrase of the inscription, but that Jerome and others who 
knew of altars to ‘unknown gods,’ thought of them rather than of the 
altars to T@ mpoonKovTe Gew. 

Suggestions have been made that the phrase ‘unknown God’ is 
borrowed from Gnosticism or from Hittite religion ; but there is no 
evidence that there was ever anywhere an altar to the ‘unknown God’ of 
the Gnostics. There is indeed very little evidence that the Gnostics 
used this phrase. It is possible that Hittite religion had a theology 
which included an unknown Father-God, who was revealed by a Son- 
God, but the evidence is slight, and is many centuries earlier than 
Acts. It seems extremely improbable that either Gnosticism or Hittite 
religion have anything to do with the phrase. In Paul’s speech the 
writer takes it to mean the God of the Jews and Christians, though it 
certainly did not have that meaning in Athens, 

To sum up, it is doubtful whether there was ever an inscription 
which read exactly dyvioTp Oew. If there was, it probably was a 
survival from the cleansing of the city by Epimenides, and if the 
inscription was really in the plural it meant either ‘the gods of other 
nations whose names are unknown,’ or ‘gods of importance whom it is 
well to propitiate, though they are not known by name.’ 

For the recent discussions of the subject see E. Norden, Agnostos 
Theos; R. Reitzenstein, ‘Die Areopagrede des Paulus’ in the Newe 
Jahrbiicher fiir klass. Altertumswiss. xxxi. pp. 393-422 ; Weinreich, ‘ De dis 
ignotis quaestiones’ in the Archiv fiir Religionswissenschaft, xviii. (1915) ; 
P. Corssen, ‘Der Altar des unbekannten Gottes,’ ZNTW., 1913; Ed. 
Meyer, ‘ Apollonios von Tyana’ in Hermes, lii. (1917); the reviews of 
Norden’s book by Birt in the Rhein. Museum fiir Philologie, 1914, and 

1 Printed in Migne, PG. xxviii. coll. 1428 f. 



by F. C. Burkitt in JTS. xv. (1914) pp. 455 ff.; Th. Zahn, Commentary 
on Acts, Excursus viii. (pp. 870-882). The fullest summary of the 
evidence and recent literature is in Wikenhauser, Die Apostelgeschichte 
und ihr Geschichtswert, pp. 369-390. 

Notn XX. “Your own Ports” 
By Kirsopr LAKE 

It is obvious that the use of a familiar quotation by no means 
implies that the user was acquainted with the book from which it was 
taken. Therefore, although from an early period passages in the speech 
of Paul at Athens have been recognized as quotations, it does not 
necessarily follow that either Paul or the writer of his speech was 
acquainted with the books from which these quotations were taken. 

It is doubtful whether the phrase “‘as some also of your own poets 
have said” refers forward or backward, or possibly both. The matter 
seemed settled by the identification of the phrase “for we are also his 
offspring” as a quotation from the Phaenomena of Aratus, but it has 
been reopened by the discovery that “for in him we live and move and 
have our being” may be taken from Epimenides. 

Aratus was born about 310 B.c. of a good Cilician family, either 
in Soli or Tarsus. He was the pupil of Menedemos and Menecrates, 
and the friend of Zeno the Stoic, and his writings show considerable 
Stoic influence. He wrote a poem to Pan, some medical works, an 
edition of the Odyssey, and other minor works which are not extant, but 
his most famous composition was the Phaenomena, a treatise in verse on 
Astronomy, which was very popular and used for many generations as a 
school book. (See H. Weinhold, ‘Die Astronomie in der antiken Schule,’ 
a dissertation at Miinchen, 1912, published in the Zeitschrift f. Gesch. 
der Erziehung, N.F. 3, pp. 143 ff) Posidonius wrote a comparison of 
him and Homer, which suggests the combination of Homer and Aratus 
which is found (see p. 247) in Euthalius and probably in Origen. 
The Phaenomena were translated into Latin by Cicero and others, and 
many commentaries were written on his work. (See the edition of E. 
Maass, 1893; the same writer’s ‘Aratea’ in Philol. Untersuch. xii., 1892 ; 
A. Westermann, Mv@oypador, pp. 52 ff, in which are printed the five 
extant lives of Aratus, all representing a common source, and Wilamowitz 
in the Nachrichten d. gétting. Ges. d. Wissensch., 1894, p. 198.) 

The passage quoted from Aratus in Acts is the beginning of the 
poem. This was first recognized by Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 1, xix. 
91.4f. It runs as follows: 

2 X\ > A 397 > ” on 

éx Aus dpxwperOa. rdv ovdéror’, avdpes, eOpev 

dppytov’ peotat 5¢ Ards maca pev ayvial, 

réca S avOpirwv dyopat, perth S¢ Oddacoa 
x fe 7, XN 4 Pa 

kal Awpéves' tavrTn Sé Ards KexpypeOa wavtes. 

xx “YOUR OWN POETS” 247 

a“ XN \ 4 ) EY 4 “a G9 4 > - 
Tov yap Kal yévos eipev’ 0 & rvs avOpwrows 
SeEua iver, Naods 8 ei € eye pet 

£1 onpaiver, ds 8° ei epyov eyeip 

/ , 7 > @ Ay B uh 
pipvyvrKwv Bidtow, Aéyer S Ste BOAoS apiory 
Bovot re Kat paxéAnuor, Aeyee & dre SeEvat Spat 
kal puta yupooa Kal oréppata mévta BadrerOat, 
airos yap Th ye ojpar’ év ovpavar errnpi&ev 
aotpa Siaxpivas, éoxepato & eis eviavtov 
dorepas of ke padiora TeTvypéva, ONpatvovev 
> / c / > > , (3 
avpdow ‘Apawv, opp eureda mavra hiwvras. 
(ed. Maass, 1893, pp. 3 f.) 

It is interesting to note that this passage not only contains the 
quotation in Acts xvii. 28, but that there is a strong general resemblance 
between the second part of the passage and xvii. 26. A note to xvii. 
28 in Codex 1739 which usually gives the comments of Origen is 
’Apdrov kat “Opujpov roujrov. Von der Goltz, who first published this 
Ms., read only "Apaz[ov] (TU. neue Folge, ii. 4, p. 44), but though the 
note is erased and faint the other words can be read in a bright light. 
The same or a similar note is found in Cod. H, Syr hl and Euthalius, 
It is possible that Aratus was using the earlier poem of Cleanthes to 
Zeus, which contains the line é« gov yap yévos éopev. No special 
reference to Homer can be suggested except the familiar description of 
Zeus as ‘father of gods and men.’ 

Epimenides is a half-mythical figure in Greek history whose story Epimenides 
was related by Theopompus and quoted from him in Diogenes Laertius 
and other later writers. The same story is told by him as is found in a 
later mythology of Rip Van Winkle. His father sent him one day into 
the country to drive back some sheep into the city, but he went to sleep 
on the road, and when he woke up discovered that nearly all his friends 
were dead. At last, however, he found his younger brother, who had 
become an old man, and learned from him what had happened. He died 
at the age of 157 according to Theopompus, but Diogenes says that the 
Cretans held that he was 299 and that Xenophanes gave a different form 
of the story which reduced his life to 154. 

It is generally presumed that this is the same Epimenides who was 
reckoned among the seven sages of Greece, and there is an early tradition, 
found both in Plato and in Aristotle, that he purified the city after the 
Cylonian pollution in the method described in Addit. Note 19. That 
this tradition was found in Aristotle was unknown to modern scholars 
until the discovery of the “A@nvaiwv IloAiteia, and Plato’s statement 
was regarded as proof that Epimenides came to Athens at the time of 
the Persian war. Plato’s words are as follows: tide yap tows akijKoas Plato. 
ws Emipevidns yéyovev avnp Oeios, ds Hv Hiv oixetos, €XOav Se xpd Tav 
Tlepouxav Séxa erect mpdtepov rap’ buas Kata THY Tov Oeod pavreiay, 
Ovaoias re CObcatd Tivas ds 6 eds aveirc, Kai by Kal PoBovpéevwv tov 
Ilepouxdv "AOnvaiwy ordXdov efrev Ste Séxa. pev érav odx iEovoww, drav 
8 <APwow dradrAayjoovra mpdgavtes oddev dv HAmifov maOdvres Te 4) 
Spdcavtes TAEiw Kad. TOT ody eLevoOncav piv ot rpdyovor Hpav, Kat 


edvoav &x Térou Eywye tyiv Kal of yuétEpor Exovow yovas (Plato, Leg. i. 
642 D, E). 
This seems explicit enough, and the tradition found in Plutarch and 
elsewhere that the purification of the city by Epimenides took place in 
Aristotle. the time of Solon was generally and naturally discounted. But the 
beginning of the ’A@nvaiwv ToArreia is as follows: . . . [M]ipwvos kal” 
iepdv 6pdocavres dpiotivinv. KatayvwoGévros S¢ rod a&yo[v]s [vexp]ot 
pev ex tov Tabwv ée&eBANOnoav, 7d Se yévos aitav epvyev devpvyiav. 
[’Exc]uevidns 8 6 Kpns ért rovrous exdOnpe tiv woAwv. This is at least 
as explicit as the statement in Plato, but is inconsistent with it and 
confirms the story in Plutarch. The reference is to the Cylonian 
pollution of which the earliest accounts are those given by Herodotus 
v. 71 and Thucydides i, 126. From these accounts it would appear 
that a certain Cylon endeavoured to make himself tyrant. The 
attempt failed and some of his followers were killed. In putting them 
to death the ruling clan in Athens, the Alemaeonidae, violated the right 
of sanctuary. Later on they were punished for this crime. The trial, 
according to Plutarch (Solon xii.), was conducted by Myron, and Plutarch 
describes how after these events the city still appeared to be polluted 
according to the soothsayers and Epimenides was summoned to purify it. 
Modern As between Plato and Aristotle it is hard to decide, but the general 
sashitacad tendency of modern investigators has been to accept the Aristotelian 
story. Diels, especially in the Sitzungsberichte of the Berlin Academy, 
argues that the Aristotelian tradition is correct, and the story in Plato is 
due to a recrudescence of the question of the Alemaeonidae in the time of 
the Persian war. The whole matter is very obscure and is fortunately 
not one of those which an editor of Acts has to decide. Obviously 
Epimenides is a more or less mythical figure, and Diogenes Laertius 
mentions significantly that there was more than one person of that name. 
(For modern studies see especially Diels, Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, 
vol. ii. 12, pp. 489 ff., and the same writer in the Sttzwngsberichte of the 
Berlin Academy, 1891, pp. 387 ff., and Demoulin, ‘Epiménide de 
Créte,’ in the Biblioth. de la faculté de philos. et lettres de l’Université 
de Liége, fase. xii, 1901.) 
Diogenes There was in antiquity a considerable literature attributed to 
Laertius. Epimenides. Aristotle mentions a collection of his oracles (Aristot. 
Rhet. iii. 17, p. 1418 a 23, cf. Plutarch De def. orac. 1), but the fullest 
account is that of Diogenes Laertius i. 111f, who writes: éroinoe dé 
Kovpjrwv kat KopyBdvrwv yéverw kat Ocoyoviay, érn mevraxurxidia 
*Apyots vavrnyiav te, Kat “Idcovos eis KéAxous drdrdovy, ery 
eLaxurxidua wevtakdow. cuvéeypaye S€ kai xatadoyddnv Iepi bvorov, 
Kat THS év Kpyty mwoXcreias: kat Ilepit Mivw Kai “PadapdvOvos, eis ern 
tetpakirxidia, idpicaro S kai wap ’AOnvaios 75 tepdy TOV cEepvOV 
Gedy, &s pyor AdBwv 6 *Apyeios év tH Tlepi rounrov. A€yerar dé 
kat mpotos oikias Kal dypovs KaOnpat, Kal iepa ispicarba. cioi & 
ot pay KownOnvar adrsv éyovow, GAAA xpdvov Tia exraTHTaL, 
aocxodotpevov rept piloropiav. éperar 8 adrod Kal erurtoAy mpos 
YAwva tiv vopobérnv, mepiexovoea woditeiav Hv Suera~e Kpyot Mivas. 


dAAd Anpjtpios 6 Méyvyns ev Tots Trept Opaoviperv TouTav TE Ka 
cvyypapéwv Suehey xewv metpara THV emurToAny ws veapay, kal pr} 
7H Kpyntixcy dovy YEypappevny, °"ArOi8s 5é, Kai Tabry ved. 

None of these writings is fully extant, and it is not clear how many The 
of the titles are alternative names for the same books. The fragments fhe cro bg 
which remain are collected in Diels, Fragmenten der Vorsokratiker, ii. 1?, 
pp. 489 ff. (cf. also O. Kern, De Theogontis Orphicis, pp. 62 ff.). Diels is 
inclined to postulate only two works, one in verse called Ocoyovia 7) 
Kpyrixa 7) xpnopot, and one in prose called Kafapyot. H. Demoulin 
thinks that hardly any of the fragments are genuine. Probably he is 
right, but the point of importance is that a volume of literature rightly 
or wrongly ascribed to Epimenides was extant in the first century and 
that this literature included works about Minos. The quotation from 
Diogenes implies that one (about Minos and Rhadamanthus) was in 
verse and another (the Constitution of Minos) in prose. 

The importance of these observations is due to the discovery of the Isho‘dad. 
following passage in the recently published commentary of Isho‘dad: 
‘This, ‘In him we live and move and have our being’; and this, ‘ As 
certain of your own sages have said, We are his offspring.’ Paul takes 
both of these from certain heathen poets. Now about this, ‘In him we 
live,’ etc. ; because the Cretans said as truth about Zeus, that he was a 
lord; he was lacerated by a wild boar and buried; and behold! his 
grave is known amongst us; so therefore Minos, son of Zeus, made a 
laudatory speech on behalf of his father; and he said in it, ‘ The Cretans 
carve a Tomb for thee, O holy and high! liars, evil beasts, and slow 
bellies! for thou art not dead for ever; thou art alive and risen; for in 
thee we live and are moved, and have our being,’ so therefore the 
blessed Paul took this sentence from Minos; for he took again ‘ We are 
the offspring of God’ from Aratus a poet, who wrote about God, and 
about the seven [planets] and the twelve [signs]; saying, ‘From God we 
begin, from the Lord of heaven, that is, Zeus; for all markets, and seas, 
and havens are filled with his name; and also in every place, all we men 
are in want of him, because we are his offspring; and he out of his 
goodness giveth good signs to us and to all men. He moves us to 
come forward to work; and he ordains all that is visible and invisible ; 
and because of this we all worship him and say, Hail to thee, our 
Father, wonderful and great !’” (Horae Semiticae, x. 4, p. xiv.). 

It is probable that this was taken by Isho‘dad from Theodore of 
Mopsuestia who was one of the chief sources which he used, and this 
hypothesis is supported by a quotation from the Gannat Busamé which 
preserves the Nestorian tradition based largely on Theodore, and repeats 
the same story about Minos. (See Rendel Harris in Mrs. Gibson’s 
edition of Isho‘dad, Horae Semiticae, x. p. xiii, and Expositor, Oct. 1906.) 
Neither Isho‘dad nor the Gannat mention Epimenides ; Isho‘dad indeed 
says that the author of the poem was Minos, but they prove that the 
phrase “for in him we live and move and have our being” came from 
the same poem as the description of the Cretans as liars, evil beasts, and 
slow bellies ; and concerning this latter verse, Clement of Alexandria 



testifies that it was taken from a poem of Epimenides the Cretan. For 
in Stromata I xiv. 59. 1 he says: pact de "EAAnves pera ye ‘Opdéa kat 
Aivov kat rods wahavordrous rapa opio. moras ért copie TpoTovs 
OavparOnvat Tovs erred. Tous erikAnOevras coors, Gv técoapes . . 
Tov O& €Bdopov of pev TlepiavSpov elvan Aéyourw Tov KopivOov, ote 
°"Avaxapow Tov UKvOny, ot be ‘Emupevidny Tov Kpjijra [dv “EAAnvikov 
oide mpopyrny,| ob pepvynrat 6 dda-rohos IlatAos ev TH mpods Titov 
érurtoAy, A€ywv obrws* “ etrév Tis EE adbtav dios tpopyrys obTws* 
Kpiares det Yetorat, xaxd Onpia, yaorépes apyat* 
Kal 1) paptupia airn éeotiv ddnOys.” This statement is also repeated 
by Jerome and Chrysostom in their commentaries on Titus. 

Combining the testimony of Isho‘dad and Clement, it seems clear that 
they referred the two quotations to a poem of Epimenides, and its 
attribution to Minos by Isho‘dad is explained by the statement in 
Diogenes Laertius that Epimenides wrote about Minos. Probably Minos 
was introduced as a speaker in the Kpyruxd. 

This evidence seems sufficient to justify the statement that “we live 
and move and have our being” is a reference to Epimenides. It is true 
that as it stands in Acts this passage is not an hexameter, but it is 
possible that the metrical form has been lost in the course of. trans- 
mission, and a very slight change suffices to restore it. Rendel Harris, 
for instance, reconstructed the four lines of the poem as follows : 

TipBov érextivavTo oéGev, Kidurte, peyiore, 

Kpjres, det petdorar, kaka Onpia, yaorépes apyai: 

> \ 7, > ? / 4 X\ > 7 

addrAa od ¥ od OvicKets, EoTynKas yap (wds aici: 

> * A A XX Vd > OX \ > 7 

év yap vol (Opev, kat KivipeO” nde Kal exper. 
A. B. Cook has conjectured a somewhat different Greek (see Zeus, i. 
p- 664) which is as follows : 

gol pev érexTHvavtTo Tdov, wavuméeptate Saipov, 

An Bea Led \ Y , > v 
Kpres det Yetorat, xaxd Onpia, yaorépes dpyai 
> \ \ > ‘ /, / A \, ¢ SF: 
GAA yap ov ad Odves, (des S€ Kal toracat aici: 
év gol yap (Gpev kal KiveduerOa Kat eipuev. 

The point is of no importance, but I think they are both wrong in 
their first lines, for Chrysostom (Com. on Titus, i. 12) gives 
kat yap tdpov, © ava, oeio 
Kpjres érextivavto: ob & ov Oaves: eoot yap aii. 

There is no reason for emending this. It is true that Chrysostom is 
quoting from Callimachus (Hymn to Zeus, lines 7 and 8); but in the 
light of Clement’s evidence I think that Callimachus must himself 
have been quoting .Epimenides, or in view of the extremely doubtful 
chronology of the poems of ‘ Epimenides’ it is possible that ‘ Epimenides’ 
was quoting Callimachus. It is conceivable that the Epistle to Titus 
is quoting Callimachus, as Chrysostom says, not Epimenides, as Clement 
says, but scarcely possible that Clement did not know that Epimenides 
wrote thus. 



Some scholars, however, for whose opinion I have much respect, 
think that Isho‘dad has confused Callimachus and Epimenides, mainly 
on the ground that the poets would not have used exactly the same 
language. Personally I feel less inclined to discount the evidence of 
Isho‘dad, but it is worth remembering that the large amount of quotation 
from, or reference to, Greek poets in Paul’s speech at Athens is more 
important to the student of Acts than the exact identification of the 
writers. The really significant thing is that Greek quotations seem 
here to play the same part as the Old Testament in speeches to Jews 
or in a synagogue. (See further Additional Note 32.) 

It is also possible, though perhaps less probable, that the passage from 
Epimenides had passed into a commonplace which had lost its metrical 

One further point, however, calls for attention. Can it be an accident 
that the inscription “to an unknown God” which Paul takes, as it were, 
for his text (see Addit. Note 19) suggests more than anything else the 
story of the visit paid to Athens by Epimenides the Cretan, and that 
the striking phrase “for in him we live and move and have our being” 
seems to be a reminiscence from a poem by Epimenides, from which yet 
another quotation is found in the probably spurious epistle of Paul to 
Titus ? 

That at least the literature of Epimenides was known in the Pauline 
circle, including the authors of Acts and of the Pastoral Epistles, seems 
almost certain. Assuming that Paul really delivered this speech before 
the Areopagus, an attractive picture might be drawn of how the connexion 
of Epimenides with the altar to the unknown God led up to a quotation 
from the poem of Epimenides. But obviously much the same sequence of 
thought can be attributed to the writer of Acts if the speech be regarded 
as his composition. If Titus were a genuine Pauline epistle the matter 
might be different, but it probably is not. 

Nott XXI. Artemis oF EPHESUS 
By Lizy Ross TayLor 

Demetrius’s claim (Acts xix. 27) that Artemis of Ephesus was wor- Acts xix. 27. 

shipped in all Asia and throughout the inhabited world was not exag- 
gerated. Not only was the cult the most important of the province of 
Asia: it had a fame throughout the Greek and Roman world that 
probably no divinity except Apollo of Delphi could surpass. The city’s 
great goddess, frequently given epithets like peydAn, peyiotn,) with 
her temple, which was numbered among the seven wonders of the world, 
was Ephesus’s chief claim to pre-eminence, and the Ephesians jealously 
guarded her fame. 

1 Compare the Ephesian oath in Xenophon of Ephesus, Hphesiaca i. 11, 
Tiv warpiov Nuiv Oedv Thy peyddnv E*eciwv “Apreuw. 

The goddess 
of Ephesus. 

The Temple. 


The origin of the goddess at Ephesus is shrouded in obscurity. She 
seems to have been a form of the great Asiatic mother-goddess, a divinity 
of fertility who, before the Ionian colonists came, was already worshipped 
without temple or image at the site of the later Artemisium beside the 
ancient harbour of Ephesus. It is likely that the Ionian settlers gave 
the goddess her earliest temple and image and her name Artemis, which 
she acquired as an adjunct to the local name Ephesia that she always 
retained. With the name Artemis she also had attached to her many 
of the legends of the maiden huntress. Ephesus even claimed to be the 
birthplace of Artemis and Apollo, though Apollo had no real share in 
the cult at the shrine.? 

There had been earlier structures before the great Artemisium was 
begun in the middle of the sixth century. By that time the shrine had 
attained such fame that the whole of Asia is said to have shared in the 
expense of the splendid marble temple.* King Croesus of Lydia dedi 
cated the columns, which were conspicuous because of the friezes in high 
relief about their bases. The temple was of enormous proportions— 
about four times the size of the Parthenon. The work on the temple 
required a hundred and twenty years for its completion. The great 
shrine was burned to the ground on the night of the birth of Alexander 
the Great (356 B.c.).4 Immediately—again, it would seem, with the aid 
of all Asia—work was begun upon a new structure even more splendid 
than the earlier one. The new temple was similar in proportions to the 
previous one, and it retained many of the characteristic features, 
notably the frieze at the base of the columns. Fragmentary remains 
of the columns of both temples are to-day preserved in the British 
Museum. The new temple, richly adorned with works of the greatest 

1 On this name see Jessen, s.v. Ephesia, Pauly-Wissowa, 2754. 

2 For the close relation between Artemis of Ephesus and Apollo of Claros 
see Picard, Ephése et Claros, recherches sur les sanctuaires et les cultes de V’ Ionie 
du Nord, Paris, 1922. Picard’s study contains the most exhaustive collection 
of the material available on Ephesian Artemis. See also Jessen, s.v. Ephesia, 2, 
Pauly-Wissowa. For the inscriptions see Hicks in Ancient Greek Inscriptions 
in the British Museum, iii., and Heberdey and Keil in Forschungen in Ephesos, 
i.-iii. New inscriptions are published from time to time in the Jahreshefte des 
6st. arch. Inst. Important for the temple of Artemis is the edict (ibid. xxiii., 
1926, 282-284) of the proconsul Paullus Fabius Persicus dating from the reign 
of Claudius. It shows the activity of Roman authorities in attempting to 
prevent graft in connexion with the Artemisium. 

Literary evidence for Artemis of Ephesus is abundant from Herodotus 
down to the writers of the Empire. The fullest material is found in Strabo, 
xiv. 639-642, and Achilles Tat. vii. 13-viii. 14. The temple of Artemis was 
excavated under the auspices of the British Museum (see below), the city, on 
the site to which Lysimachus moved it a mile away, by the Austrian Archaeo- 
logical Institute. On the topography of Ephesus see Biirchner, s.v. Ephesos, 
Pauly-Wissowa, and G. Radet, Hphesiaca, i. and ii. 

3 Pliny, NV.H. xvi. 213; Livy i. 45. 

4 Plut. Alex. 3. 



painters and sculptors of the Greek world, had a place in practically 
every ancient list of the seven wonders of the world. 

Although the votive offerings of the early period show Artemis under The 
a wide variety of types*—nude, draped, seated and standing figures {en or ae 
with many attributes—the cult image was a stiff upright figure which soddess. 
resembled the trunk of a tree out of which the earliest image seems to 
have been fashioned. In the later period the erect figure was completely 
covered with a symbolic adornment which suggested the goddess’s 
character as a composite divinity of fertility. Just when the adornment 
became fixed in the type under which Ephesian Artemis was widely 
represented in imperial times cannot be ascertained ; the earliest dated 
representation of the type that we have is found on cistophoric coins 
of Ephesus and Tralles of about 133 3B.c.2 It shows her wearing a 
modius and veil on her head; her figure is bound from waist to ankles 
in shroudlike bands; and the upper part of her body from waist to 
neck is covered with breasts. About her head and among the bands 
of the lower part of her body are representations of animals and birds. 

The entire adornment seems to have been superimposed on the image. 

The head-dress, the many breasts, and the bands about the body 
have all been associated with other eastern representations of the mother 
goddess. They are indications of the Oriental character which Ephesian 
Artemis always retained. Further indications of the same character are 
to be found in the priesthoods and festivals of the shrine.‘ 

The chief priest of Ephesian Artemis, like other priests of the Asiatic The priest 
mother goddess, was a eunuch. During the period of Persian power % 4™tems. 
he acquired the Persian title Megabyzos, which he afterwards retained. 
Strabo’s account (xiv. 641) has raised some questions : tepéas = evvov- 

Xovs efxov, os éexdAovv MeyaPufous, kat Gdhaxdbev petovres det 
Tivas agiovs THs Touatrys Tpootacias, Kat ajyov €v Ti peyary 
ovviepac Gat de Tovrous expyv mapbévous, vuvi d¢ 7a pev puddrrerat TOV 
vopipwv, Ta 8 irtov. Picard * had drawn the conclusion from this state- 
ment that in Strabo’s day there was a whole college of Megabyzoi who 
served the goddess in place of the single chief priest of an earlier time, 
but Strabo’s words are not definite enough to make the suggestion 
certain. Picard also holds that under the Empire there was a single 
high priestess who took the pre-eminent place in the cult which the 
Megabyzos had previously held, when only one priest of that title served 
at a time. But though there are imperial inscriptions which mention 

1 On the temple see Biirchner, op. cit.; Picard, op. cit. chap. i.; D. C. 
Hogarth, The Archaic Artemisia (British Museum, Excavations at Ephesus 

* See Picard, chap. vii., with his criticisms of Hogarth’s conclusions as to 
the early type of the goddess. 

3 Head, A History of the Coinage of Ephesus (reprinted from a3 Num. 
Chron. 1880), iv. p. 11. 

4 The eastern character of the goddess has been ably demonstrated by 

5 Chap. iii. 



The Essenes. 


Sacrifices to 

Asylum for 


individual priestesses, there is no proof that they served independently 
of other priestesses. The organization of the hierarchy must remain in 
doubt. The maiden priestesses, whom Plutarch compared to the Vestals,* 
held office for a temporary period, after which they might marry. 

The priestly organization included a large number of officers, both 
male and female. Among the most distinguished were the xoopnrteipat, 
matrons who had charge of the sacred adornment of the goddess. The 
office, like that of the maiden priesthood, was often hereditary in 
families.* The inscriptions record the titles of a number of officers who 
were associated with the great festival of Artemis—ypvaodpdpor, Seurvo- 
dpor, évOvuiatpou, iepoxnpuxes, etc. 

Associated with the cult was also a group called the Essenes who 
lived as a celibate brotherhood during the year of service. The city 
appointed officers called vewroia., later veoro.oi, two from each city 
tribe to act as temple wardens. They made provisions for all repairs 
and all dedications in the temenos of the goddess. 

Sacrifices to Ephesian Artemis were made chiefly with food, libations, 
and incense, less often, it would seem, with victims. The chief festival 
of the goddess was in the month which the Ephesians named Artemisium, 
because Artemis was said to have been born in it. The most important 
feature of the festival was a great procession in which all the cult objects 
of the shrine were carried. For this festival, and for the equestrian, 
gymnastic, and musical contests that accompanied it, all the Ionians of 
Asia were wont to come together‘; following the ceremony there were 
often deliberations of a political nature. 

One of the great prerogatives which the Artemisium shared with 
other shrines was the right of providing asylum for fugitives, and even 
in certain cases for runaway slaves.’ Many of the latter passed into the 
possession of the goddess. The right, which had been extended by Mark 
Antony, had been abused to such an extent that it was investigated in 
the Roman senate in the reign of Tiberius. At that time the repre- 
sentatives of the Ephesians appeared in the senate with the delegates of 
other cities to plead their rights. Their pre-eminence is indicated by 
the fact that they were heard before the delegates/of the other cities. 

Another prominent feature of the Artemisium was its importance in 
financial affairs. Besides caring for the great wealth of the goddess, the 
temple treasury functioned as a bank. It received deposits from kings, 
cities, and private individuals, and it lent money. Aristides refers to it 
as Tapeiov kowwdv Agias.? 

In Acts xix. 35 the ypappateds of Ephesus calls the city ‘sacristan’ 
of the great Artemis (vewkdpov otocav Tis peydAns’Apréusdos). This is 

1 See the important inscription of Salutaris, Forschungen in Ephesos, ii., 
No. 27, line 266. 

2 Mor. 795 B. 
3 Cf. CIG. ii. 3002 yévos Exovcay dvwhev lepevdv cal Koounrerpav. 
4 Thue. iii. 104. 5 Achil. Tat. vii. 13. 

® Tac. Ann. iii. 60-61. 7 Or. xlii. 522 3. 



the earliest known case of a vewkdpos 7éA1s and the only instance where 
the word is applied to the cult of Artemis. Later the phrase is common 
in its application to cities possessing league temples of the imperial cult 
in Asia. A city was said to be vewxdpos or Sis, or even tpls vewKdpos 
tov Y<Bucrdy, according to the number of temples of the imperial cult 
which it possessed.1 It is not unlikely that the phrase originated in 
Ephesus as a description of the city’s relation to Artemis. 

The fear which the success of Paul’s preaching aroused among the Demetrius. 
craftsmen is of great interest. There are many references to images of 
the goddess in the inscriptions,? and many votive offerings have been 
found in the excavations. But nothing so far discovered corresponds 
to the vaods dpyvpots Apréuidos. Hicks made the tempting suggestion 
that in the description of Demetrius, Aypajtpws yap tis dvdpart, 
apyvpokdros, Towwv vaods apyvpovs ’Apréutdos, the writer of Acts was 
making a mistaken amplification of the word veorods which he found in 
his source and failed to understand. A Demetrius who was an eponymous 
veoro.ds of his year—that is the first veoro.ds of the Ephesian tribe— 
is named in an inscription which Hicks dates about the middle of the first 
century after Christ. He suggests that this veowouds may be identical 
with the Demetrius of Acts. He would still retain the association of 
Demetrius, who was by profession a silversmith, with the image makers, 
assuming that he made not vaoé but silver images of the goddess such 
as are frequently mentioned in the inscriptions. 

If we may trust the account in Acts, the cult of Artemis was in The 
eclipse as a result of Paul’s preaching, and the Ephesians were trying ieee 
to guard the prestige of their divinity. About a century later the cult 4-D. 160. 
of the goddess was again on the wane, and we find the Ephesian senate 
taking active measures to restore the goddess to her former prominence.‘ 
Again, it was probably the growing power of Christianity which caused 
the decline of Ephesian Artemis. The decree, dating from the year 160, 
reads as follows: 

edJofev Tijs TpoOTNS Kat pel yiorrns patplowéXews tis “Agias Kai dis 
vewk[dpou TOV _2Bdjotov kal prroreBdorou "Edeioiwy réAews TH 
BopAy Kat T~ SH * mept dv eiony[nrac . . AlaPépros "Apowvos 
prrocéBarros, 6 ypapplareds Tod Shjpov, dreyiburav dé of o7[plarnyot 
Tis ToAews idocéeBacror* [Ered 1) rlpoertdca ths roAEws pdv 

1 See W. Biichner, De Neocoria, Giessen, 1888. For the Jews as vewxédpor of 
their god see Josephus, Bell. Iud. v. 9. 4, § 283. 

2 Notably in the Salutaris inscription mentioned above. 

3 See Hicks, Hxpositor, i. (1890) pp. 401 ff.; against his suggestion see 
Ramsay, tbid. ii. pp. 1 ff., and Hicks’s reply, ibid. pp. 144 ff. Cf. Picard, 
pp. 127. For the inscription of Demetrius see Ancient Greek Insoriptions in 
the British Museum, iii. 578 and p. 209. 

4 Ibid. No. 4828, p. 144 (=Dittenberger, Sylloge®, 867). See Hicks’s dis- 
cussion there and his suggestion that the Salutaris inscription, which is practic- 
ally contemporary with Pliny’s letters about the Christians, is to be associated 
with “a wave of reaction against the advance of Christianity in Asia Minor.” 

Asiarchs in 


The League 
of Asia. 


Geds “Apres od pdvov] év TH eavTAs watpidu atipara, jv a[AAwv 
dracav moAewv| évdoforépay Sida THs idias Oevdrynt[os meroinxer, 
GJAXa rapa ["EAAnotv re xJat [B]apBaplolis, dlore TOXA Jaxod dveio Oat 
adThns idpd Te Kal Tyas: aga 5 eorw) a) TE cidptr Gan Kat 
Boports [airy dvaxeio Bau Sia] Tas Ur avrijs _Yevopevas éevapyets 
ex paveias} Kat touTo Se peyurrov TOU Tept adTny od Bac |pot cor 
TEKHpLOV, TO ETwvupov adt[js] elvar pHva Kadovpevov rap Alliv pev 

"Apt[emwrrjova mapa S& Maxeddow Kat trois Aowrois Overw] ois 
c a XN a > > aA / > 7 > = \ 
EAAnvixois cat tais ev adtois méXdeody] “Aprepiowv, ev @ pvt 

7 7 c fal s > 
mavnyepes Te Kat tep[o]unviat eritehovvrat, Suadepovtws Se ev 
[77] PET EPS monet TH Tpopy Tips idias Oeod THS “Egfecials: porn Kov 
de eivas Tyotpevos 6 S7jpos [6 ‘E]periov éXov Tov paiva TOV éexdvupov 
Tov Oeiov dlvdpuaros civar iepdv Kal dvaxeioOar tH Oed [e]Soxipacev 
S[Ja rovde tod Yydiopatos [katacrno]ac tHv wept adtod OpnoKeiay * 
516 [Se56x Oat iep}ov tov pava rdv *Aprewiordva ei[var wacas Tas 
.3 7 + Wa tas > ad la bX ée ” ny ¢€ ‘ \ ‘ 
npépas, ayer Oar Sé ex avtais phv[a dAov 8c] érovs tas éoptas Kal THY 
tov Aptepliciwv maviylupw Kai Tas tepounvias, are TOD pnvds S[Aov 
dvakeipélvov TH Oeg' ottw yap ert 7d apewov THs [Bcod Tiuwpev]ns 
c / € “a / XN > , > a 
n rods HplOv e]vdogorépa re Kal evd[Larpoverrépa] cis Td[v aralvTa 
Siapeve? y[pdvov]. 

Notre XXII. Tur Asrarcus 
By Lizy Ross Taytor 

Apart from the reference in Acts, there is slight evidence in literary 
sources for the Asiarchs. In the time of Augustus they are mentioned by 
Strabo, and in the reign of Antoninus Pius or Marcus Aurelius by the writer 
of the letter of the Smyrneans on the martyrdom of Polycarp. They are 
further known from several references in late juridical sources. On the 
other hand there is a large amount of inscriptional evidence for them. 
Their names and their titles are recorded on numerous coins and stones of 
the cities of Asia. Moreover, similar titles like Galatarch, Bithyniarch, 
Lyciarch from the neighbouring provinces throw light on their character. 
The records of the Lyciarchs are particularly significant because they are 
abundant, and many of them are early in date. 

The Asiarchs were the foremost men of the province of Asia, chosen 
from the wealthiest and the most aristocratic inhabitants of the province. 
Strabo (xiv. 649) describes them as of mpwrevovtes Kata TiHv érapxiav, 
and the numerous honours claimed by the Asiarchs in cities and in the 
provinces bear out his words. They were holders or former holders of a 
yearly office in the league that was formed by the cities of Asia. Every 
important city claimed Asiarchs among its citizens, and Ephesus would 
probably have had several in the time of Paul. 

The league of the cities of Asia, like other Greek leagues, was a religious 
organization with certain political functions. It probably existed in 
republican times and was active in the erection of monuments to the 


goddess Roma and the Roman proconsuls. The first definite reference to it 
as a league (70 Kouwvdv Tov dd THs ’Acias “EXAjvwv) comes from the early 
days of Mark Antony’s power in the East. In 29 B.c., after Octavian’s 
final victory over Antony, the league secured permission from the new 
ruler to erect a temple to him in common with the goddess Roma at 
Pergamum and to institute quinquennial games there in honour of the 
new cult.?, Henceforth the chief purpose of the league was the cult of 
the reigning emperor and with him of the goddess Roma, who, however, 
speedily acquired a secondary position. The league in Asia, in many ways 
a prototype of the leagues formed in other provinces, became a valuable 
instrument of the provincial governors in securing loyalty to Roman rule. 
It maintained the cult of Roma and Augustus in Pergamum, and its repre- 
sentatives assembled each year in one of the chief cities of the province to 
celebrate the emperor’s birthday as a festival of the league. Among the 
cities Ephesus ranked with Smyrna and Pergamum as the most important. 
In addition to the shrine in Pergamum, new league temples of the imperial 
cult were built in other cities. Under Tiberius a temple was constructed 
in Smyrna, and under either Claudius or Nero a third shrine was built 
in Ephesus. This shrine may have been in existence when Paul was in 
Ephesus. Later other temples were built, and Ephesus itself eventually 
had two more league shrines. 

From Strabo’s account of the neighbouring Lycian league* we can Lycian 
perhaps form some idea of the method by which the league elected 18" 
its officers. In Lycia representatives of the twenty-three cities came 
together in the city agreed upon and cast their votes for the Lyciarch and 
the other chief officers of the association (4A Aa dpxal ait Tob oveTHpaTOS). 
Each representative had one, two, or three votes, the number being 
determined by the size of the city which had sent him. If the Asiarchs 
were elected by a similar system, cities like Pergamum, Smyrna, and 
Ephesus would have disposed of more votes than the smaller cities and 
therefore would have had a better chance of securing the election of their 

1 See the beginning of Mark Antony’s letter to the League, preserved in 
the papyrus published by Kenyon, Classical Review, vii. p. 476: Mdpxos ’Avrwr.os 
abtoxpadtwp Tpiav avipGy Snuoclwy mpayyudrwv amoKaracTdoews, TH Kowa THY 
amd Tis "Aclas ‘ENAjvwv, xalpev. 

2 Dio li. 20. 7-9 rots dé 6h E€vors, “EAAnvds opas émixadéoas, éavT@ Tuva, 
Tors wév ’Aotavots év Ilepydum rots 5¢ BuOuvots év Nixoundela, remevioa érérpepe 

. kal €\aBov Kal of Ilepyaunvol rov dyava tov iepdy dvouacuévoy ert TH Tod 
vaod abrod Tin moveiv. 

3 Strabo xiv. 664-65 elol 5¢ rpets cal elkoor ores al Tis Whpov meréxovcat * 
ouvépxovra. dé é& éxdorys mébdews els Kowvdv cuvédpiov, Hy Av Soximdowor modu 
Eddpuevor* Tav dé modrewy ai wéyiorar mev Tpidv Whpww early éxdorn xupla, al de 
péoa Sveiv, al 5 ddANae pias * dvd Abyov Sé Kal Tas elaopopds elopépovor Kal Tas 

Gddas Necroupylas.. . . év 6€ 7G cuvedply mpBrov pev AvKidpyns aipetrat, efr’ 
Gra dpxal ai rod cvorjpatos. Sikacripid Te amodelkvuTar Kowy. . . dpolws de 

kai Oixkacral kal dpxovres ava Adbyov rats Whdos €& éExdorns mpoxerplfovrac 

VOL. V iS) 

The dura- 
tion of the 

The High 
Priest of 

The identity 

of the high 
priests and 


The Asiarch held office for a year. The title dovpyns may denote a 
man in his year of office or may, like any of the titles familiar in the Roman 
cursus honorum, indicate that the office had been held in the past. In one 
case former service is clearly indicated by the aorist participle do.apyjoas. 
(In the neighbouring Lycian league Av«.apxjoas is fairly common, though 
Av«.idpx7s also seems often to refer to a former holder of the office.) The 
office might be held more than once, a fact that is clearly indicated by 
occurrences of the title doudépyns 8. In each year several Asiarchs were 
appointed. There was probably one who served for the entire league and 
there was one who functioned at the league temples in each of the cities. 
Thus we find titles like dovdpyyns vadv tov ev Lpipvyn, dodpxys vadv 
Tav ev Ederw.} 

After the league of Asia began to devote itself to the imperial cult, the 
chief officer of the league was the high priest of the emperor, dpyxvepeds 
Acias. In time several high priests were appointed in each year, one 
presumably as chief priest of the whole league and one to officiate at the 
league temples of each city.? Aelius Aristides, the rhetorician, writing about 
the middle of the second century, describes his election as Archiereus of 
Asia (Oratio Sacra, iv. 26. 101-104, ed. Keil). After his name had been 
presented to the assembly by the Smyrneans, he says that he got third or 
fourth place in the voting, but the place secured his election, presumably 
as high priest of the league temples in one of the cities. The titles of the 
Archiereis are closely analogous to those of the Asiarchs. Thus we find 
the simple title dpyepeds or dpxvepeds "Acias, dpxtepeds B to indicate a 
second term of office, an isolated case of the aorist participle dpyvepardpevos 
to denote the completion of the term of active service, and the fuller titles 
which indicate the association with the league temples of a particular city : 
dpxvepevs "Acias vaod tod ev “Edéow, dpxtepeds "Avias vadv tov év 

The similarity of titles in itself suggests that at least for the second 
century and later, the period to which the majority of the inscriptions 
belong, dovdpxns and apxvepeds *Acias were alternate titles for the same 
office, the high priesthood of the league of Asia, but there is also more 
definite evidence to support the identification. In the theatre of Ephesus 
were discovered the following inscriptions: (IJ.B.M. 604)... dywvoGe- 
tovvtos T[B.] lovAiov “Pyyeivov dpx[tlepéws B vadv trav év “Ede ow]. 
(605) . . . dywvo(A)erobvros 8? aidvos Tif. lovd. “Pyyetvou doudpxov 
B vaav trav év ’Edéow. The similarity in the two titles held by 
the same man is striking, and it requires a forced interpretation of 
the evidence to assume, as some scholars have, that Julius Reginus 
held twice two separate offices of the league at the temples in Ephesus, 

The titles Archiereus and Asiarch are also both given to a certain 

1 See the list of Asiarchs and Archiereis published by Chapot, La Province 
romaine proconsulaire d’Asie, pp. 482 ff.; cf. Ruggiero, Dizion. Epigr. i. pp. 
728 fi. 

2 See the important article of A. Stein, ‘Zur sozialen Stellung der provinzialen 
Oberpriester,’ "Exiripfiov Heinrich Swoboda dargebracht (1927), pp. 300-311. 


Philippos of Tralles, and here again there have been efforts to explain the 
evidence on the assumption that there were two different offices and two 
men of this name. In the letter of the Smyrneans on the martyrdom of 
Polycarp, dating from the middle of the second century, we learn that 
the people of Smyrna, eager for the death of Polycarp, appealed to the 
Asiarch Philippos (rdv dovdpxnv Pidurrov) to loose a lion upon him. 
The Asiarch refused because the games were at an end, and so Polycarp 
was burned alive. In the statement of the time when the martyrdom 
took place we find the words éwi dpxvepéws Pidirrov Tpaddravod.~ 
Moreover, an inscription recording a Philippos of Tralles as Asiarch, and 
another mentioning a man of the same name as Archiereus of Asia, 
are preserved from a date that seems to correspond with Polycarp’s 
martyrdom. (See Lightfoot, Apostolic Fathers, S. Ignatius, S. Polycarp, 
Letter to the Smyrneans, part ii. vol. ii. sect. ii. pp. 947 ff. For the 
inscriptions see Dittenberger, OGIS. 498, 499, and the discussions of 
date and identity there.) 

A further indication of the identity of the two offices is found in the The high 
fact that the wife of the Asiarch sometimes has the title dpysépeva, high Ptestess- 

priestess, an office that was the special prerogative of the wife of the 
high priest of the province (CIG. 3677): . IAo(riov) Adp. I'pdrov, 
dorudpxov kat “lovAias Avp. Age Aemeobdnas THS ‘yvvatkds nae 
apxvepeias.t Another record is even more significant (CIG. 3324): 
Avp. Zijvev cai M. KA, *lovAvav7, dovdpyau Sis, . . . Here husband aa 
wife are both called Asiarch, and scholars opposed to the identification of 
Asiarch and Archiereus of Asia have found no explanation of the title but 
have been forced to assume a stone-cutter’serror. Asa parallel for Asiarch 
as a title for a woman (there is no other instance of it in Asia), we may 
note that in Lycia the high priestess of the league is more than once 
referred to as Avx.apxiooa. In this connexion a law of Constantine, 
quoted in the Codex Justin. v. 27. 1, is of interest. The object of the 
law was to make sure that the high priest should have a worthy wife. 
It forbade anyone enjoying the ornamenta of a priesthood to claim, 
as legitimate, children borne to him by a woman of low birth, and it 
explains the priesthood by offices analogous to the Asiarchate—id est 
Phoenicarchiae vel Syriarchiae. 

The office of Asiarch is described as a priesthood in two other juridical 
sources. One of them is the following passage on immunities quoted from 
Modestinus in the Digesta (xxvii. 1. 6): EOvovs i iepapxia. (the word is corrupt: 
iepapxia is Mommsen’s reading, iepwotvn Politianus) | olov dorvap xia 
BiBvvap xia kammadoxapxia TapeXet aXevroupynoiav aro er iTpoTrav, 
ToUT éoTw ews adv dpxy. An even more explicit statement that the 
Asiarch was priest of the province comes from the scholia to the Basilika 
(ed. Heimbach, iii. 681) ot iepeis Tov erapyxiGv ToT éoTiV dowdpyat Kal 
ot Aouroi. 

The evidence thus indicates that from the second century Asiarch 

1 See also J.G.R. iv. 1233. Other instances are cited by Stein, op. cit. p. 303, 
n. 6, but most of them do not seem to apply. 





and Archiereus of Asia were alternate titles for the same office.t But 
at an earlier time there is reason to believe that Asiarch was a more 
inclusive title than Archiereus. In the time of Paul there were two or 
perhaps three league temples in the province of Asia, and therefore 
presumably three or four high priests were chosen in each year. It is 
quite possible that there was at the time a considerable group of holders 
and former holders of the high priesthood in a city of the importance of 
Ephesus, and the passage in Acts seems to imply that the Asiarchs were 
fairly numerous there. But in the days of Augustus when Strabo wrote 
there was only the league temple at Pergamum, and there could not have 
been more than two high priests chosen in each year. How then can 
Strabo’s statement (xiv. 649) about another city, Tralles, be explained ? 
cuvoikeitat b€ KaA@s et tis GAAH TOV Kata THY "Aciav trd cirdépwv 
avOpwrwv, kat dei tives €€ adris eiowv ot mpwrevorTes KaTA THY ETapXiav 
ovs dovdpxas kadovowv. In the intense competition between the cities of 
the time even the wealth of Tralles cannot account for the success of the 
city in securing the priesthood a number of times. If, as in Lycia, there 
was a proportional system in the number of votes allotted to each city, 
Tralles would hardly have had the maximum number of votes. When 
early in the reign of Tiberius (Tac. Ann. iv. 55 ff.) there was a contest 
among eleven cities of Asia for the site of the second league temple, the 
Tralliani were passed over as parum validi. 

Moreover, Strabo presents a further difficulty. Among the Asiarchs 
he mentions a certain Pythodorus, a supporter of Pompey, who later had 
his property confiscated by Caesar, but succeeded eventually in regaining 
his wealth. Continuing from the passage quoted Strabo says: dv IlvOddwpds 
te hv avip Nucaeds 7d €& apxijs, exetore O€ pera BeBnKws dia. THY eripdverar, 
kai év TH mpds Lloparjuov piria Siarpéerwv per dALywv' wepreBEBAnTO Se 
Kat ovoiav BaotAtkny rAedrwv 7) SurxiAiwy Taddvtwr, Hv trd Kaicapos 
Tov Oeod mpabeioav Sia riv mpds Lloprjov diriav eEwvynrdpevos odx 
qTTw Tois mat KaréAure, . . . ODTOS d} KAP’ Huas jKpace. Although 
it is possible that Pythodoros did not hold the office of Asiarch until 
after the cult of the emperor was organized in 29 B.c., it is more likely 
from Strabo’s words that he was Asiarch in the time of Pompey. It is 

1 From a late fourth-century inscription in which the producer of the 
quinquennial games in Asia is called Asiarch, A. Schulten (Jahreshefte des dst. 
arch. Inst. ix., 1906, pp. 66 ff.) concludes that the Asiarchate “ bezeichnet die 
alle vier Jahre zu dem Amt des Provinzialpriesters hinzutretende Function des 
Spielgebers.” This view, previously advanced by Monceaux, De communi 
Asiae, p. 56, is refuted for the later period by the fact that the Asiarchs are 
much more numerous in inscriptions than the Archiereis. See Chapot, op. cit. 
p. 479, n. 2. For the early empire see the discussion of Tralles above. It is 
impossible to base conclusions for the early empire on the late rescript of 
Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian which Schulten thinks settles the whole 
question. It belongs to a time when poverty made the onus of public office 
a serious problem, and it perhaps indicates that at the time Asiarchs were 
chosen only for the occasion of the quinquennial games. Even in the rescript 
there is no reason to suppose that Asiarch is not equivalent to Archiereus. 


noteworthy that, though not a native of Tralles, Pythodoros was named 
by Cicero as one of the most important citizens of Tralles in the year 59 
B.C. (Pro Flacco 52, “‘ Ubi erant illi Pythodori, Aetidemi, Lepsiones, ceteri 
homines apud nos noti, inter suos nobiles ?”’). 

If as early as the time of Augustus the city of Tralles always had The earlier 
Asiarchs in its population, and if one of them probably belongs to a time P°°% 
before the cult of the emperor was established, it is obvious that the 
Asiarchs and the Archiereis of Asia had not yet come to be identical, 
as they seem to have been at least from the second century on. It 
would seem that the Asiarchs were more numerous than the Archiereis, 
and that they were known in the province before the imperial cult made 
necessary the appointment of a high priest. My explanation (based 
originally on a suggestion made to me by Professor Allen B. West) is that 
from the Asiarchs designated in each year as the foremost men of Asia one 
was chosen to act as high priest of the emperor, and then, as the temples 
of the league were built, one was selected to serve at the league temples in 
each city. Thus all Archiereis would have been Asiarchs, but all the 
Asiarchs would not have acquired the distinction of the high priesthood. 
As the number of league temples grew, in time there would have been a 
priesthood for every Asiarch, and the two terms would thus come to be 
identical in meaning. It is possible that this was already the case in the 
time of Paul, or at least in that of Luke. 

Even before the imperial cult was established, the Asiarchs may in fact 
have had charge of league monuments, presumably shrines of Roma and of 
the Roman proconsuls whose festivals and monuments persisted in Asia. 
We might again use the analogy of the Lycian league, though we must use 
it with caution particularly because Lycia was not yet a Roman province 
when Strabo described its organization. Lycia chose only one Lyciarch a 
year, an officer who, at least after the establishment of the Roman province 
under Claudius, is frequently called Archiereus. But at the same time it 
chose other officers (4pxat). Asia apparently called all of its chief officers 
Asiarchs, and, before the imperial cult became the centre of the league, 
may have placed them in charge of monuments of proconsuls like Mucius 
Scaevola whom she continued later to honour. 

When Asiarch and Archiereus of Asia became alternate titles for the he later 
same office, there were certain distinctions in the use of the two terms. Pei: 
Asiarch, because it was briefer, was preferred for the limited space of a coin. 
But in formal documents dpyxepevds was the official designation of the 
high priests of the emperor. It is, for instance, the term used in dating the 
martyrdom of Polycarp. Asiarch, as Mommsen pointed out, is the more 
popular term, used to express the pre-eminence of the office which Strabo 
emphasizes. It is noteworthy that the pre-eminence of the imperial 
priests is emphasized in other provinces by such expressions as tpWTos TOV 
‘“EAAjvwv, mpOtos THs erapxeias (Dittenberger, OGIS. 544, 545, 652). 
The compounds of «.pyeiv are very similar in the idea which they conveyed 
to the popular mind. That such is the case is clear from the titles of the 
high priest in the Achaean league. Under Nero he is spoken of as primus 
Achaeon or 7 patos Tov am’ aiwvos (AJA., 1926, 393; I.@. iii. 805). Under 


Hadrian he is called dpyvepeds kal EAAaSddpyxns, and henceforth Helladarch 
is a regular adjunct of the titles of the high priest in the Achaean league. 
(See Stahelin, s.v. Helladarchai, Pauly-Wissowa.) The same usage is to be 
found in Galatarch as an additional title for the high priest of the league in 
Galatia. In Asia, however, Asiarch and Archiereus of Asia do not occur 
together as a combined title. The reason is perhaps to be found in the 
fact that Asiarch was an old title, already in use before the imperial 
cult was established, while probably Galatarch and certainly Helladarch 
were new inventions to express the pre-eminence of the provincial 

[On the league in Asia see Chapot, La Province romaine proconsulaire 
@ Asie, pp. 454-467 ; Kornemann, s.v. Koinon, Pauly-Wissowa, Suppl. iv. 

Against the identification of Asiarch and Archiereus of Asia see the 
following articles in Pauly-Wissowa: Kornemann, s.v. Koinon (Suppl. 
iv.); Ruge, s.v. Lycia; Brandis, s.v. Asiarch and Archiereus. See also in 
Daremberg and Saglio, Perrot, s.v. Asiarches, and A. Souter in Hastings, 
Dictionary of the Apostolic Church, i. pp. 102 f. 

For the suggestion that the Asiarchs are Archiereis who have completed 
their term of service see Guiraud, Les Assemblées provinciales dans l empire 
romain (1887), pp. 97-106. 

In favour of the identification of the two offices see the following 
discussions : Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, S. Ignatius, 8. Polycarp, 
part ii. vol. ii. sect. ii. pp. 987 ff. (ed. of 1885) (valuable because the 
evidence available in 1885 is quoted in some detail); Marquardt, Rém. 
Staatsverwaltung, i. pp. 513 ff.; Mommsen, Jahreshefte des dsterreich. Inst. 
iii. (1900), pp. 1-8; Dittenberger, OGIS. 498, n. 3; Fougéres, Mélanges 
Perrot, pp. 103-108 (a revision of the opinion expressed in his thesis, 
De Lyciorum communi). 

For a good summary of the evidence, which reaches no conclusion, see 
Chapot, op. cit. pp. 468-489.] 

Notre XXIII. Tue Micnigan Papyrus Fragment 1571 
By Suva New 

The codex. This single mutilated leaf of a codex of Acts has been dated as 
early as the first half of the third century and as late as the end of the 
fourth. In the Harvard Theological Review for January 1927 Professor 
H. A. Sanders published a facsimile of the papyrus, with a reconstruction 
of its contents and some discussion of its text. Since the Harvard 
Theological Review is not always accessible, and because some important 
suggestions have been made since Professor Sanders’s publication,’ it has 
seemed desirable to print the text in this volume. 

1 See especially Prof. A. C. Clark, ‘The Michigan Papyrus of Acts,’ J.7'.S. 
xxix. (1927-1928), pp. 18 ff. 



Acts xviii. 27-xix. 6; xix. 12-16 

KVL 20 Pl stisies 

- « ] GTHN axaia TIOAY cyNelBarero Tats exxdAn] 

28 [orJajl[s] eyTONWCe rap Toic 1oy[dacJoic AiaKlarnrey] 
[xeTo] AHMOCIA AialreyouerJoc ett i[Secxvus] 


[dca T]WN FPAPWN XPN [ewat] THN BEAONILos Se] 

[rov m]ayAoy KaTa TH[Y diay Bov]AH[y mopev] 5 
[ecOa]i E1c 1epocoAyma [ewer avtw] to [7va] 
[vrocrplepein eic Tiny aca dueOwy de ra] 

2 [avwrlepika mepl[n elpyetale ets epecor] Kay [er] 
[rev to]c MAOHTAIC El TINA arltoy edaBleTe TH 
[orevoa]utec o1 A’ attekpeiNalyro mpolc ayTo 10 

3 [kovca]men * o Ae TrayAOC Trpoc ay[Tou]c * [ele tI OY 
[eSarrlicOute * o1 Ae EAETON EIc TO [t]waNNOY 

4 [Barr:]gma e1TreN Ae TrAYAOC TWANNHC EB[a] 
[wrive]y BaTITICMa METANOIAC TW Aaw Aeralr] 15 
[ets tov] EpYOMENON Mé[T] AYTON INA TriICcTEy[ew] 

5 [ow rov]t ecTIN €1C TON THN akoylelantels de] 4; 
[rovro eBamri]o@HCAN EIC TO ONOMA TOY KIv] 

6 [nuwv iv Tov xi as alecin aMAaAPTIWN K[at] 
[eriBevros avros Toly Tra[vAou xetpa] etre[re] 20 

[sev @¥a TO ayov er avjroyl[s 

1. Sanders originally read @ev for 
g7v, but he has since seen the rnv 
clearly. Apparently the scribe wrote 
TIN and changed this to a ligatured 
tH by adding an horizontal line in 
which the ink is a little paler. Sanders 
completed this line by supplying Ba)- 
Aero ev Tats exkdn, but this gives a very 
long line so that Badero rats exxdn is 
a probable conjecture. 

2. No line in the fragment as re- 
constructed by Sanders has more than 
34 letters, except this and the previous 
line. This has 38, which suggests 
that the word supplied at the end 
may be wrong. But the dia- seems 
certain, excluding dieXeyero, and no 
acceptable suggestion has been made. 

3. The & after Sdyyocm is quite 
clear and shows that the papyrus 
had the diadreyduevos of D. Sanders 
however reads dia[Neyouer Jos emcdecxvus 
rather than dia[Aeyouevos] Kay em- 
dexvus with D, but it seems possible 
that the traces of letters which he 
reads as os are really kat. 

4. Oedovi{os] is clear, but is an error 
for 0éXovTos. 

8 f. The reconstruction given is that 
of Sanders. Since ua@yrais is certain 

it is much the most probable sug- 
gestion. It introduces the disciples 
abruptly, unlike all other texts, but it — 
is not really difficult to understand. 
10. crevoalvres o de arexpevalvro 
pols is the reading of Schubart and 
of Wilcken in the privately issued 
Bulletin of the Bezan Club, and is now 
accepted by Sanders, except that he 
thinks that the papyrus has 4’, as 
above, not Ae. ; 
11. Prof. Sanders supplies ovewy 7 in 

- the space towards the end of the line. 

It would also be possible to read over 
zt, but the longer reading more exactly 
corresponds to the length of the cer- 
tain supplement in the line above. 

19. The reconstruction given was 
suggested by Prof. A. C. Clark. It 
avoids the necessity of supposing 
that contrary to his usual practice 
the scribe here wrote out xpiorov in 
full. From this point to the end of 
the recto the lacunae are too long to 
justify details of reconstruction. For 
instance it might be er@evros avrocs 
tov IlavAouv xelpas eweTecev TO TYAa TO 
ayiov er avrovs... The one thing 
certain is that the codex read é7 
avrovs, not én avrois. 


MEER, EA Pes aethens, sues Sh anesae co danecs e ] etm Toye ACOENOYN([TAS] 

[emede]pecOal: alto Toy xpwtoc coyAalpia] 
H CIMIKINOI[@ KJat atTTaAAaccecOal alm aura] 
[lac Nocoy[s Ta rT]e TTANTA TA TIONHPA €[k70] 
13 [peve]colae eTEXELPJHCAN AE TINEC klar ex] 5 
[Twy meprepxouerwlN ToYAaIWN €2[opKe] 
[orwy ovoyasew er]i Toyc €XONT[as ra] 
Trylara Ta TovjHpa Tlo o]JNoma Toy K{v inv] 
ALeyorres] EZOPKIZOMEN YMac TON [7] 
14 on [knpu]ccei 0 tTrayAoc EN O1c Kal y[toe oKev] 10 
ia [F IovJaaroy TINOC apxiepewc HOLeEAy] 
c4n [To alyto troiHcal E80c exonTec [efopxe] 
OMEN CO! EN IHyY ON TrayAoc oO [arocro] 
15 Aoc KHpyccel EZEAOEIN atTOo[KpiOer] 
A€ TO TINA TO TIONHPO[y exrev avrous inv] 
[yleilvwokw kali toly mavdov emorapac] 

16 [v] meus de riwelc ec[Te Kat epadopevos] 20 

[o av@pwros e]tt afurous... 

4. ravra seems clear in the photo- 
graph, though Sanders prints 7v7a, 
but as the suprascript line denoting 
an abbreviation is also clear this is 
probably a slip of the pen. 

10 ff. The reconstruction of the 
lacunae in these lines is peculiarly 
difficult, as both in 10 and 11 the 
obvious suggestions do not completely 
fill the space, as may be seen by 
comparing the corresponding places 
in the recto. In 10 xnpv is three 
letters less than the certain vro po 
in line 10 on the recto, and in 11 
the gap between .o and dav was 
filled by Sanders with the single letter 
v as against ovow 7 in the corre- 
sponding place in the recto. Sanders 
suggested that there was on the verso 
a flaw in the papyrus which rendered 
it unfit for use. This is possible, but 
a rather desperate suggestion. An 
alternative in line 10 is to restore 
[xa xnpvlooec which fills the lacuna, 
but this is, if anything, too long, and 
gives an otherwise hos reading. 

Line 11 is still harder. The iota at 
the beginning is certain, but the 
following letter might be an alpha or 
anomicron. The reconstruction given 
above gives the spelling of Scaeva 
found in the codex Alexandrinus, and 
the fragment of a letter visible after 
the iota is consistent with an alpha 
in which the pointed angle at the left 
bottom corner has been chipped away 
so as to give a rounder appearance 
than usual. In the space between 
the initial iota and the delta in covdacou 
there is plenty of room for five letters, 
but Sanders throws a little doubt 
on the ¢ which has been supplied, 
by pointing out that in papyri there 
is often a gap left after a numeral, 
which is also often a large letter (cf. 
the Michigan fragment of Matthew in 
the Harvard Theological Review, xix. 
(1926) pp. 215 ff.). On the other hand 
cov does not fill the space, asis shown by 
the fact that the corresponding hole on 
the other side of the papyrus covers at 
least six letters, and probably seven. 






That the general character of this text is Western is obvious at a 
glance. It has all the paraphrases common to D and the margin of the 
Harclean Syriac, as well as the interpolation in xix. 14. But in smaller 
matters of wording and order it is not exactly the text of either of these 
two Western authorities, as the following collation with Codex Bezae 
clearly shows. ; 

xviii. 28. tov “Inoodv eivac Xpurtév] Xpurrov eivar “Inoodv (cf. eivas 

tov Xpiordv “Inooty sABHLP->) 

xix. 1 f. etpov tivds pabyrdas fre pds avtods] erev tots pabntais 

2. ot dé rpds avrdv] of dé drexpeivavto pos adrdv unattested. 

3. efrev 5é] 6 5¢ IlatAos rpds avrods unattested, but cf. etrév re 

mpos avtovs HLPe, 6 dé efrev NA, elev Te B. 
4, 6 Ilatdos] IlatdXAos c. SABHLPSo. 
Xpiordv] tov “Incoty c. NAB, tov Xpucrdv Inootv HLPScs. 
5. Kupiov| TOU Kuptov c. SABHLPSco. 
6. avrois | abdtovs c. NABHLPSco. 
12. xpwrds avros] Xpwtds unattested. 
4 cal] 4. NABHLPS¢. 
mvevpata Tovnpa| trvetpata Ta Tovnpda c. SABHLPS¢. 
13. xvpiov] Tov Kupiov c. SABHLPS¢. 
opxico | eLopkifoper, cf. 6pkifopev c. HLPSo. 
IladAos Knpicoe| knpiooe 6 IatAos, cf. 6 TladAos xnpiooe 
d Droge 
14, om.’Iovdaiov] ins. Ilovdaiov c. SABHPSs. 
tepéws] dpxepews c. SABHLPSo, 
eixav] €xovtes unattested. 
Tovs ToLovTous eopkifew] eLopKifey Tovs TovovTovs Harclean 
Tov SatmoveCopevov] SapoveCopevov unattested. 
IlatAos] IlatAos 6 drécroXos unattested. 
eLeAOciv knptocet] kynptooe e€eAOetv Harclean. 
15. Tore daexpi On] amroxpiOev 5€ SABHLPS¢ Harclean. 
16. els adtods 6 dvOpwros] 6 dvOpwros ex’ adrods c. NAB. 

The most striking feature of this collation is the uniformly unim- 
portant nature of the variants. With few exceptions they are either 
quite unattested or are common to most manuscripts. That they are 

1 In a text which is so largely reconstructed it is difficult to know what 
variants may properly be cited, but I have tried to include only those which 
are certain. Thus, silence obviously does not in all cases mean agreement 
with D, and the text of the papyrus must be consulted whenever any question 

of the text. 

The papyrus 
and the 


not merely another way of cataloguing individual peculiarities of D is 
shown by the fact that the Harclean margin when extant tends to agree 
with D rather than with the papyrus, though it does not always do so. 

That the papyrus has not been slightly corrected to a Neutral 
standard is shown partly by its date, but especially by the fact that its 
agreements with SAB etc. are all in small variants—the more striking 
Western readings, both of the ‘ paraphrastic’ and ‘ interpolative’ types, 
being all retained. In a corrected ms. it is usually the striking variants 
which are changed, the small points which remain. In this connexion 
it is highly significant that the unattested variants are mostly within 
the Western readings, which have found no place in the Neutral text. 
Their lack of support is natural enough; for we have no Greek witnesses 
to the Western ‘interpolation’ except D and the papyrus. 

This problem of the relation of the papyrus to the Western text as 
a whole is of course the most important of those raised. 

The Western text differs in its attestation from the Neutral in two 
significant directions. 

(i.) It is geographically more widely spread and chronologically earlier. 
It is found in Carthage, Edessa, and Egypt, as well as in the unknown 
home of Codex Bezae, and it was apparently used by every witness to 
the text of Acts as well as of the Gospels in the third century, except 
perhaps Origen and Clement. 

(ii.) There is, in everything except general features, no such close 
agreement between the individual witnesses to the Western text as is 
found in the case of the Neutral text, or even more in the case of the 
Ecclesiastical text. On small points D, the African Latin, the Old 
Syriac and the third-century writers constantly disagree. In the text 
of the Gospels we can, indeed, distinguish with substantial accuracy 
between three phenomena: (a) ‘ Families’ of manuscripts which clearly 
represent a single ms. Such are Family 1, Family 13 and Family I. 
(b) ‘Texts’ where there is obviously an intimate connexion between 
Mss. which are not, however, genetically connected. Such are the Neutral 
text found in Mark in NBLAW 33, the Caesarean text found in 
© 565 and their associates, the African Latin found in the Gospels 
in Cyprian and & or in Acts in Augustine and the Fleury palimpsest. 
(c) ‘Types’? of witnesses from which a definite text cannot safely be 

1 So far as the Gospels are concerned Origen used sometimes the Neutral 
and sometimes the Caesarean text (see ‘The Caesarean Text of Mark’ by 
K. Lake, R. P. Blake, and S. New in the Harvard Theological Review, October 
1928). In Acts he seems at least to have had many Western readings, but 
it would be unsafe to say of him, as of Irenaeus, that he used a Western text. 
Clement of Alexandria in the Gospels used a Western text, but in Acts seems 
to show Neutral variants. However, he quotes Acts so little that it is rash to 
speak very positively. 

* Types is perhaps not the happiest word. My friend Professor Blake 
suggests ‘phase,’ and the German Gestalt is possibly better than any English 


reconstructed, though they are obviously connected.t Such is the 
Western text, both in the Gospels and in Acts. It is not really Western 
and it is not a text, but it is a ‘type’ of which early examples are 
found in all the chief centres of the Church in the third century. We 
see it in varying perspective, according to the source which we are 
using ; we can approximate to but never completely define its readings. 

To this Western ‘type’ the Michigan papyrus belongs. Its im- 
portance is that it comes from Egypt, is earlier than any ms. of the 
Neutral text, yet has a great amount of agreement with it in details. 
If we suppose that the Neutral text is a third-century Egyptian revision 
of an older text of the Western type, the Michigan papyrus is probably 
the best example known of that subdivision of the ‘type’ used by the 
reviser, who, as always happened, corrected the spectacular variants, 
but retained the smaller ones. To put this supposition in another form, 
in the Michigan papyrus and in B we have witnesses to two successive 
forms of the Egyptian text. Thus in a collation of the papyrus with 
D we would naturally have, as we do, a series of small agreements with 
the Neutral text, and a complementary series of unattested variants 
within the Western ‘ interpolations.’ 

The facts may be made plain by a more detailed consideration of Acts xix. 
one passage from the papyrus. aie 

Acts xix. 14-15 
The Western Text according to 

The Neutral Text the Michigan Papyrus 
Hoav S€ twvos DKeva lovdatov év ols Kal viot oKev | 
dpxepéws éxrd viot TodTo ia (¢ *Tov|Safov tuvds 
Touobyres * droxpuBev € 7d apxvepews HOEAnTaY 
mvetpa TO Tovnpov eimev Td av7Td mounoat, Bos 
avTois, exovres eLopKifew 

Tovs ToLovTOUS* Kat 

eioeA Portes mpds 
Satpovifopevov np&avTo 

<: exixaAcio bat 7d dvopa, 
Critical Notes on the Western Text éyovres * wie payyé NAopév 

om ( D apxtepews] vepews D hI™® — grou év *Inood by HadAos 

Tivos] Ties SA 
oKeva.| oKevia A 

exovtes]| evxav D (hl™*) 6 adréartoAos Knptocet 
Tous ToLouTous eLopkiferv D e£eOeiv, dmoxpibev Sé 
tov Saipovifopevov D TO rvevpa Td ToVNnpdv 
amroxpiOev Se] tote arexptOn D eirev avtois, KTA. 

1 That is to say, any reconstruction would necessarily have a large 
apparatus with many variants within the text. This is really the criterion. 
Family 1, and even more Family II, can be reconstructed so securely that in 
the whole of Mark there doubt about more than a dozen words (less 
than that in Fam. II). A reconstructed Neutral text would have two or 
three alternative readings in every chapter, the Caesarean text perhaps twice 
as many; but the Western text would have variants in every verse. 


The general difference between the Western type and the other 
readings is obvious. The Western text has the framework év ois... 
nOéEAnGav 7d adTd rornoat, Cos ExovTes TOs ToLovToUs eLopKiferv followed 
by a detailed account of the exorcism—xai ciceAOdvtes pds Tdv Sai- 
povifouevov npavto erikadcioOat Td dvopa A€yovTes TapayéeAAOpEeV ToL 
ev Inood dv IlatAos knpiooe: eX Ociv. There are some minor variants 
in this account, but the important variant is within the framework. 
D reads €v ofs Kai viol YKeva Tivds tepews HOEAnoav 7d adTds Tovqoat, 
the Harclean margin reads “in quibus erant filii septem Scevae cujusdam 
sacerdotis,” etc., and the Michigan papyrus has év ofs kai viol... 
"lovdaiov tivds apxvepéws, etc. Unfortunately it is not certain whether 
the lacunae cover 2xeva érrd or not, though the balance of probability 
is perhaps favourable. 

Thus though the Western text type is unmistakable it varies in a 
manner which cannot be accidental. The rival texts with negligible 
variants read jjoav O€ Tivos Ykeva iovdaiov dpxrepews ExTa viol TovTO 
movovvtes, and they continue, very awkwardly, droxp.Gev Se 75 rvedpa 
TO movnpov eirev avTois. 

The chief point to be noted is that the Western text tells a different 
story from the Neutral. According to the latter the ‘sons of Scaeva’ 
are introduced as examples of the Jewish exorcists mentioned in the 
preceding verse; according to the Western it was ‘at this juncture’? 
(ev ois) that the sons of Scaeva wished to copy the Jewish exorcists. 
Except in the Michigan papyrus it does not say that Scaeva was a Jew. 
This reading appears to be the first Egyptian emendation, and due to a 
misunderstanding which took év ofs as meaning ‘among whom.’ Once 
this change was made it would inevitably appear that the long Western 
reading was unnecessary repetition, 7d avré would naturally become 
tovto, and the ‘ Neutral’ revision would follow quite naturally. 

One final observation may be made: The very awkward dzoxp.év 
of the Neutral text is not found in D, which reads réte arexpiOn, but 
it does appear in the Michigan papyrus, where it is not at all awkward 
but rather ‘ better’ Greek than the characteristic tote of D. Obviously 
this fact supports the suggestion that the Michigan papyrus represents an 
Egyptian form, slightly revised, of the Western text, and that this form 
was the basis of the Neutral revision. 

1 For this rendering cf. Luke xii. 1, Acts xxvi. 12 (xxiv. 187). These 
show that év ols, meaning ‘at this time’ or ‘under these circumstances,’ is a 
good Lucan idiom, though it is not very usual Greek. Its excuse would be 
that no one in the first century would be likely to think that Scaeva could be 
a Jewish priest, to say nothing of a high priest. Least of all would a writer 
acquainted with Jewish customs have had such an idea in his mind. He 
would not see how easily a more ignorant generation would inevitably connect 
év ols with the Jewish exorcists just mentioned. 


Notre XXIV. Dust anp GARMENTS 
By Henry J. Cappury 

The book of Acts contains a series of references to gestures involving 
the use of dust, or of garments, or both. In spite of prolonged study by 
scholars, and the inferences which may be drawn from the texts and con- 
texts of the several passages, and the citation of parallels elsewhere, the 
interpretation of these gestures remains without settled solution. It may 
therefore be advisable to look at the passages collectively and separately, 
and to tabulate and discuss some forms of explanation. 

The passages are as follows : 

(1) Acts xiii. 51 of Se éxriva€dpevoe Tov Kovioprdv TOV Toéa@v er 
abtovs RAGov eis Kixéviov. The subject is Paul and Barnabas; the place 
is Antioch of Pisidia. The Jews having “contradicted the things which 
were spoken by Paul, and blasphemed,” were filled with jealousy at the 
success of the gospel among the Gentiles, and “ urged on the devout women 
of honorable estate and the chief men of the city, and stirred up a persecu- 
tion against Paul and Barnabas, and cast them out of their borders. Butthey 
shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium.” 

This incident appears at first sight a literal fulfilment of the command 
of Jesus to his disciples as recorded in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. If Jesus’ 
command was known to the apostles Paul and Barnabas, that would 
account for their acting so. In like manner if, as is certainly the case, the 
injunction was known to the author of Acts, that would account for his 
describing here the fulfilment. Luke, in fact, twice uses the expression in 
his Gospel, once (ix. 5) at the sending out of the Twelve (a passage parallel 
to Mark and clearly derived from Mark, though influenced by a like 
passage in Q),' where Jesus commands: xal dco. av pa) déxwvTac tyas, 
eEepxopevoe ard THS TOAEwS Exeivyns Kal? Tov KoviopToV amd TOV TOOOY 
bpav arotivdooere ® cis paptupiov ex avtovs ; the other time (x. 11) where 
Jesus, commanding the Seventy, tells them in such cases to go out into 
the city squares and say: Kal Tov Kovioptdv Tov KoAANOEVTEA piv EK THS 
ToAEWS DpOV eis TOYS Tddas GropaccdépeOa buiv. There are items in the 
wording of these passages which suggest that Acts is really reminiscent of 
them. Note that in Acts Luke has in characteristic fashion * retained 
Mark’s verb extivdoow, while in the Gospel he changes it to drotiwdcow 
(and dropdocopot). The phrase in Acts ém’ avrovs finds its explanation 
in the Gospel parallels tuiv and «is paptipiuov ém aidto’s (Mark «is 
paptupiov avtois). 

1 The probable relation of the four passages is that Mark vi. 7-11 is used 
in Matt. x. 1-16 and Luke ix. 1-5, and that Q is interwoven in Matt. x. 1-16, 
and separately given in Luke x. 1-12. But both passages in Luke may 
represent some conflation with the main source of the other one. 

2 Om. xal NBCDL, ete. 

3 drorwdocere NB, éxtwdiare D, arorwdtare ACLW, etc. 

4 There are a series of items in Mark which are omitted by Luke in the 

parallel, but reappear in Acts. See note on i. 7, Vol. IV. p. 8. 

Acts xiii. 51. 




But what is the gesture, and what does it mean ? Merx* has suggested 
that the dust of the feet means the dust which is stirred up by the feet 
and clings to the garments. In this case the shaking would be of the 
garments. But except for this passage of Acts, and possibly in Matthew x. 
14,2 we have expressions like tov xotv® rdv broxdtw Tov rodév of Mark 
vi. 11, tov Kovioprdv amd TOV Tod@v of Luke ix. 5, and most explicitly in 
Luke x. 11 kai tov Kovioprdv Tov KoAANGEVTA. piv ex THs TOAEWS Eis TOUS 
w6das. Unless the expression is purely figurative, as it would be in modern 
speech, like our use of “ washing one’s hands of the matter,” it must 
mean shaking dust off the shoes ‘ or feet. 

Rabbinic commentators on the New Testament (Matt. x. 14), from 
Lightfoot to Strack-Billerbeck, regard the gesture as indicating that the 
city thus rejected is treated as the heathen. They cite the passages that 
indicate that dust from heathen lands, even Syria, destroyed Levitical 
purity, or that inculcate care to avoid imported vegetables, to burn 
priests’ garments that have come in contact with dust derived from 
heathen lands, or to blow off from the feet the dust of a field in which 
human bones have been uncovered by ploughing. But the New Testa- 
ment passages suggest that the act was not so much one of self-purification 
as of warning to those left behind,® “a testimony unto them,” ® perhaps 

1 A. Merx, Die vier canonischen Evangelien, ii. 1. pp. 178 f. on Matt. x. 14. 

2 There is some good evidence (NC 33 syr sin, etc.) for reading xovtoprdév éx 
Tav rodév instead of xoviopriv T&v wodév in Matt. x. 14, 

3 yois for the classical xov.oprés is common in the LXX and thence also 
Rev. xviii. 19. 

4 Shoes or sandals are not mentioned in any of the passages, but I believe 
that they, rather than the feet, were regarded as carrying defilement. Cf. 
1 Kings ii. 5. Of course Q, unlike Mark trodedeuévovs cavddda, seems to have 
included a prohibition of jrrodjpuara. 

5 The gesture is explained by words of warning by the missionaries (Luke 
x. 11 b) or Jesus (Q, Matt. x. 14=Luke x. 12). The best protestation to others 
might be a solemn act of self-vindication, placing the responsibility on others. 
Cf. Acts xviii. 6; Matt. xxvii. 24f. It might be equivalent toa curse. We may 
note that in the Paris magical amulet (2316. 318 v.) the witch Backxavocivy 
declares that she goes to shut up the seven sources of water, to burn off the 
threshing-floor, to shake off dust (xovioprdv dmorwdéa), and to do other 
malicious things. According to Dalman, Arbeit und Sitte in Paldstina, i., 1928, 
p. 522, the customs continue both of shaking dust off shoes and clothes and of 
shaking garments (cf. below). . 

6 The meaning of eis wapripov adrois is not absolutely clear here, and is 

‘much disputed in the other Marcan passages in the synoptic tradition, viz. 

Mark i. 44=Matt. viii. 4=Luke v. 14; Mark xiii. 9=Matt. x. 18=Matt. 
xxiv. 14=Luke xxi. 13 (where tyiy implies adrois). But I cannot enter into this 
problem. For a recent discussion of the former see 8. Zeitlin, Revue des Biudes 
Juives, |xxxvii., 1929, pp. 79 ff., and of the latter see F. C. Burkitt, Christian 
Beginnings, 1924, pp. 145 ff. The early Acta Barnabae, 20, doubtless has this 
passage in mind in saying rdv Komoprov Trav woddy éferwdiauey xarévavtTe Tod 
iepod éxelvov, cf, 21. 


of a dire fate threatening them. It would be strange indeed if Paul should 
use against Jews who objected to his Gentile success a gesture that was 
to be understood principally as the strict Jew’s act of purification against 
Gentile defilement. The shaking off of dust might mean rather that the 
missionaries clear themselves of all further responsibility for the im- 
penitence of the doomed city. It might be done in anger or scorn, but 
those are not the main elements. It was an act towards a whole city, not 
towards individuals. We may note, finally, that it did not preclude a 
subsequent return to Antioch (xiv. 21 f.) to strengthen the souls of the 
disciples there. It might further mean ridding oneself of all that has to 
do with the city. The departing missionaries not only abandon the un- 
receptive city to its fate, but even avoid taking any vestige of it with them. 
Luke himself in the Gospel adds before ‘ dust’ the climactic ‘ even.’ } 

(2) Acts xiv. 14 dxotoavtes Sé of drdarodot BapvaBas cai IladXos, 
SiappiEavres TA ipdria éEavtov eLerndynoav eis Tov dxAov, Kpd(ovtes KTA, 
The actors are the same as before. The scene is Lystra. Upon the cure 
of the lame man the natives have cried in their Lycaonian language that 
Paul and Barnabas were gods, and are preparing to offer sacrifice to them. 

Here even more certainly than in the previous passage, rabbinic testi- 
mony seems to afford the explanation. The rending of garments is the 
prescribed reaction against blasphemy. The rabbis have explicit regula- 
tions as to the cases when garments so torn can be sewed up again. There 
is also the requirement that the Sanhedrin, when hearing witnesses to a 
case of blasphemy, all except the witnesses, must rend their garments as 
the blasphemous words are repeated. 

This episode in Acts also has its counterpart in the gospels when at 
the trial of Jesus upon his admission of Messiahship we read, “ And the 
high priest rent his clothes,? and saith, What further need have we of 
witnesses ? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye?” Luke in 
his gospel omits the rending of the garments and the reference to blas- 
phemy. This is one of the cases where an item of Mark missing in Luke’s 
parallel reappears in Acts in a different connexion. 

But the rending of garments even in Jewish literature is by no means 

1 The xai is certain at Luke x. 11, but is supported only by AHA... 
min lat syr at ix. 5. 

2 By a kind of naiveté the witnesses are exempted on the assumption that 
they have duly rent their garments already—when they heard the original 
blasphemy. Moed Katon f25b. 

3 Mark xiv. 63 Sdiappjias rods xi7Gvas, Matt. xxvi. 65 dudppntev 7a iwdria, 
using the more usual noun; but diappyyvume rods xirGvas occurs in the Apo- 
crypha, Judith xiv. 19; Ep. Jer. 30; 2 Macc. iv. 38. Why the undergarments 
rather than the cloak were rent, why the high priest who is forbidden to rend 
his garments in private grief (Lev. x. 6, xxi. 10) is here permitted to doso, and 
other questions, relevant to this scene but not to Acts, are discussed in the 
commentaries on Mark and Matthew. It is doubtful whether claiming to be 
the Messiah would be technically blasphemy at all; words against the temple 
might be. 

4 See above, p. 269, note 4. 

Acts xiv. 14. 

Acts xvi. 22. 


limited to cases of blasphemy. It occurs in many passages in the Old 
Testament of sorrow,’ especially of painful surprise. Perhaps not one of 
the nearly fifty instances, not even Jeremiah xxxvi. 24, involves blasphemy. 
There, and in a few other Old Testament passages, it may be regarded as 
an act of protestation (e.g. Numb. xiv. 6). And it would seem that this, 
rather than horror at blasphemy, was the meaning of the apostle’s gesture 
at Lystra. It should be remembered, also, that in Hellenistic writings the 
torn garments are found with bared breasts in cases of entreaty,® and in 
cases of sudden irruption aiming to stop proceedings.‘ In the latter 
connexion note here in Acts é£eriSynoav cis Tov 6xAov. A like gesture is 
the tearing off or throwing off of garments. That occurs with sudden 
acts of protestation or intervention.’ I believe diappyyyvup. sometimes 
means to tear off clothes, just as it is used of breaking fetters and thus 
loosening them.*® 

(3) This interpretation at once brings us to our next passage in Acts, xvi. 
22 kal cvveréotn 6 dxXos Kat adTav, Kal ot oTpatyyol TeppipicavTes 
avTav Ta iudaria exéAevov paPdiferv. The missionaries are this time in 
Philippi; because they have driven out from the ventriloquist slave girl the 

1 The rending of garments has been discussed in the articles on funeral 
customs of the Hebrews from the earliest times and was the subject of special 
monographs by C. J. G. Heidenus (Jena, 1663), Chris. J. Schréder (Jena, 1705), 
J.C. Wichmannshausen (Viteb. 1716). Doubtless the gesture is native in other. 
groups also. Among the arguments used in the seventeenth century to 
identify the American Indians with the lost Ten Tribes of Israel was their 
agreement in this custom (Samuel Smith, History of New Jersey, 2nd edit., 
1865, p. 9). 

2 The instances cited in Moed Katon f25b in answer to the question 
** whence do we prove that the garments must be rent when the name of God 
is profaned ?”’ are 2 Kings xviii. 37, xix.1. The Greek version uses B\acgdnuéw 
in the context (xix. 4, 6, 22). Similar to the inappropriateness of using the 
gesture of defilement in dealing with the Jews at xiii. 51 is that of using the 
gesture of blasphemy in dealing with Gentiles. Cyril (Cramer’s Catena, ad loc.), 
who feels it necessary to defend the use of a Jewish custom by Christians, 
writes: @00s éoriv "Iovdalas érl rats kara Oeod Svopnyulats wepipynyvivat Ta ivaria 
. . - Oedpdxacr Sé rodro Kal of Oeowéoior paPynrat Ilabdds te cal BapydBas.. . 
éred) 5h Td Spwpevovy Svog>ynula ris Fv, Siéppnéav ra iwdria adrov wapadocect 
"Tovdaixais kal éyypddors €Oecw dxoovOodvtes. Yet the Jews were careful not to 
blaspheme Gentile gods. See Josephus as cited on xix. 37, Vol. IV. p. 251. 

3 Herodian i. 13 roaira riva elrotca, pntauévyn re Thy éoOATa KT. 

4 P Lips 37. 19. 

5 I think some instances commonly used to illustrate Acts xvi. 22 (repi- 
piyyvum) and xxii. 23 (jurréw) belong here, e.g. Ovid, Heroid. vi. 27 protinus 
exilui, tunicisque a pectore ruptis; Dio Chrys. Orat. xxxv. p. 432 M. (Dindorf 
ii. 42) de? wepipyniduevov éxmnday yuurdy eis rds dd0vs ; Capitolinus, incurrere in 
parietes, vestem scindere, gladium accipere, quasi omnes, posset occidere ; Lucian, 
De salt. 83, the spectators érjdwv cal éBdwv Kal ras éoOijras damreppirrouy (seé, 
however, p. 277, note 5). ; 

6 Luke viii. 29 dcappiocowr ra deoud (where pjoow =piyyvuut), and elsewhere. 


so-called Python the mob has gathered, and they have been accused before 
the strategi of disturbing the city and introducing customs unlawful for 
Romans. The strategi tearing off ‘ their’ clothes bid them to be scourged 
with rods. But whose clothes ? If those of Paul and Silas, then the matter 
is not a gesture at all, but the first hasty and violent steps towards 
scourging. This is on the whole quite probable. Wettstein gives at least 
five passages (Plutarch, Dion. Hal., Livy, Valer. Max.) where, in connexion 
with beatings by lictores, jéBSovyo1 (cf. Acts xvi. 35, 38), or brnpéerat, the 
torn garments of the victims are mentioned. 

But it is not impossible that the passage really means the clothes of 
the strategi themselves. Having heard the charge they express their horror 
and officious zeal by the violent ‘tearing off of their own garments. The 
verb used is repipiyyvupt, while in all other Biblical passages Svappijyvupe 
(rarely p7jyvvpt) is employed of rending one’s own garments. But there is 
abundant evidence in Hellenistic writings that repipyyyvupu is used in just 
this sense,} as well as of stripping others for chastisement. 

Such an interpretation is not new, though it has been revived by Sir 
William M. Ramsay.? It is not at all necessary for the passage, which 
yields fair sense and accords enough with ancient penological practice 
if understood of the stripping of prisoners for the lash. But in view of 
the ambiguity of the verb and of the pronoun,® and in connexion with 
the evidence of the interest in gestures elsewhere in the book of Acts, the 
possibility that the strategi tore their own clothes is worth remembering.* 

1 Plut. Public. p. 99 BE; De virt. mulier. p. 251 B. Cf. Wettstein ad loc. ; 
Demos. xix. 197 (p. 403 Reiske) ; Polyb. xv. 33.4; 2 Macc. iv. 38. Josephus 
uses the middle of wrep:piyyvusc in the sense of stripping oneself, e.g. B.J. ii. 15. 
2, § 316 (cf. 322, v.1.); Antig. vi. 14. 6, § 357, xi. 6. 7, § 221 (for SiappHyrupe 
Esther iv. 1, LXX), xviii. 3. 4, § 78; cf. Arrian, Anab. Alex. vii. 24. 3 
mepipnéauévors (without any object, of horror or grief); Alciphr. iv. 4. 4 roy 
XiTwvioKkoy Tepipniauévn TA pacrdpia Tots Oikacrats érédetas. But later Christian 
writers use the active, Acta Thomae 63 (cited by Moulton and Milligan s.v.) 
Thy écOijra wepiéppnia kal ras xelpas émlt Thy bY émrdraéa, and Cyril, as quoted 
above, p. 272 n. 2, uses the compound in zep- in the active as equivalent 
to that in éia-. In view of Luke’s independence in matters of voice in other 
verbs it would be unwise to lay stress on his use of the active here. Cf. 
Diod. Sic. xvii. 35. 5 and Charito of Aphrodisias, who used the middle of 
mepipnyvuus With éo7j7a and even alone (like Arrian) as a gesture of grief, while 
with decud he uses the active of diappiyyvums as does Luke (note 6, p. 272). 

2 St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen, p. 219, cf. 217. 

3 It is possible, though not necessary, to give the rough breathing atrdév if 
the garments are regarded as those of the strategi. 

* Such confusion between actors occurs not only where our present text is 
obscure, but probably elsewhere also through carelessness both in the earlier 
and later stages of tradition. Examples of the latter, as when the short stature 
of Zacchaeus is transferred to Jesus, are quite common. Of earlier confusions 
in the material of Acts, perhaps due to such obscurity in sources as made it 
possible for Luke (v. 29) to suppose that the dining with publicans in Mark ii. 15 
was in Levi’s house, some few possibilities may be suggested. The first of these 


Acts xviii. 6. 

Neh. v. 13. 


(4) Acts xviii. 6 dvtiraccopevwv Se adtdv Kai BrAardnpotvTwv 
extivagdpevas Ta twdtia elmev mpds attovs’ TS aiua tuov emt tiv 
Kepadnv? Kaapods eya* ad Tov viv eis TA EOvN Topetoopat. 

The scene is at Corinth, possibly in the synagogue (see verse 7), and 
the actors are Paul the missionary and the Corinthian Jews. The gesture 
is the shaking out of the garments. The verb used is the same as in 
xiii. 51, and the passages have in common the unusual use of the middle 
voice. In both passages the situation is alike, the familiar one in Acts, 
of Paul turning to the Gentiles when rejected by the Jews. It would be 
natural to connect the two gestures in meaning. To be sure, there is no 
dust mentioned here, and the gesture is not of the feet, but the garments. 
A. E. J. Rawlinson, who compares the two actions, says of this one: 
“St. Paul shakes his clothes because he has already deposited his sandals 
according to custom at the synagogue door.” + The context, however, 
gives rather more than usual the interpretation of the gesture. Paul’s 
words, “‘ Your blood be upon your own head. I am pure, henceforth I go 
to the Gentiles,” is doubtless the author’s rendering of the gesture. More 
plainly than the shaking off of dust it means ‘ washing one’s hands ’— 
to use another figure—of other men’s guilt, and the turning it back upon 
their own heads. The phrase ‘ Your blood be upon your head’ is almost 
certainly here due to the Old Testament, where it is quite common. The 
gesture also might be suspected of similar origin. But the shaking of 
garments is nearly as little mentioned in the Old Testament as the shaking 
off of dust.2. The parallel cited is Neh. v. 13, where again symbolic actions 
are explained in words following: ‘‘ Also I shook out my lap, and said : 
So God shake out every man from his house, and from his labour, that 
performeth not this promise, even thus be he shaken out and emptied.” 
The Greek verb in this passage is éxt.vdcow (ter), the noun is avaBody, 
which would probably be understood to mean cloak. The Hebrew jxh 

also has to do with garments. There is good evidence that the garments of 
those who were executed were removed, but not so much reason for mentioning 
removal of the garments of executioners as is done at the stoning of Stephen 
(vii. 58, and the note Vol. IV. p. 85; cf. xxii. 20 and Vol. III. p. 407, note 2). 
When Eutychus is raised alive after his fall it would be more natural to mention 
that he tasted food (xx. 11), as does Jairus’s daughter and the risen Jesus, than 
that Paul did. The uncertainty whether it was Paul or Aquila that shaved 
the head in a vow at Cenchreae (xviii. 18) is notorious. 

1 On Mark vi. 11 in the Westminster Commentary. 

2 The gesture is not cited from the ancients in this sense. See in a different 
connexion the examples of waving garments, p. 275n.2. I. Benzinger, Prot. 
Realencykl. x. p. 525, speaks of the shaking out of one’s garment as a gesture 
of the strongest detestation, still practised by the Arab to express his scorn. 
But this, too, is different from the present passage. And there is also the 
cabalistic Jewish custom of shaking the ends of one’s garment in the ‘ Tashlik’ 
ceremony on New Year’s day when sins are cast into the sea. The phrase eis 
Thy Kepadiy (ojv, col, etc.) has in classical Greek some parallels, usually with 
tpérw, e.g. Aristoph. Nub. 39 ; Plut. 526; Phalaris, Zpist. 102. 


means either the bosom of the cloak or the arms. But the context seems 
to imply shaking something loose. These considerations do not, however, 
affect the possibility that the author of Acts is imitating the Septuagint 
passage. But the interpretation of Paul’s gesture is not the same as 
Nehemiah’s, and still lacks from extraneous sources any illumination. 

(5) Acts xxii. 22 f. qxovov dé avtod axpt TovTou Tov Adyou Kai éExHpav Acts xxii. 
Tv poviv adtrav éyovres: Alpe ard tis ys Tov Tovodrov, od yap ™* 
Kabjkev adtdy (iv. Kpavyafovrwy te avtav Kal purtotytwy Ta ipatia 
kai Kkovioptov BaXdXdvrwv eis Tov dépa exéeAevorev 6 ytAlapyos KTH. 

The scene is Jerusalem. The actors are again Paul and hostile Jews. 
He has just spoken of being sent by God to the Gentiles. This, as usual, 
precipitates the murderous rage of his fellow-countrymen. Besides their 
shouts the author mentions two gestures or gesticulations. 

This passage is the last of our series—in many ways the most obscure, 
most vivid, and most abused by commentators. It may be noted that it 
cbmbines the two items used in gestures heretofore—dust and garments. 
The context seems to suggest that these are gestures of anger and hostility, 
but just why the inner feelings should take on such outward form is the 

The casting of garments may be interpreted in several ways. It may 
mean throwing off, and this may be explained as intended to show that 
they were stripping themselves for action. One thinks of threatened 
stoning. pizrw is used of throwing away arms in flight. It might be used 
of garments.* A similar meaning was suggested above for dia- and 
Tepipyyvupt. And at the stoning of Stephen this author tells us that 
garments were laid aside (vii. 58 aréQevro, cf. xxii. 20). The throwing 
of dust could be understood as a like mark of murderous intent. Though 
it was thrown in the air, it was intended as a threat if not as an actual 
missile * against Paul. In the absence of stones, or for fear of the soldiers 
guarding Paul, only dust is used. 

There are, however, various alternatives. The signs may not be 
gestures of actual attack, but rather evidences of the excitement and rage 
of the crowd. Commentators call it typically oriental* but cite no 
parallels.> Preuschen is certainly as near the mark when he says: “ Fiir 
das Aufwerfen des Staubes lassen sich keine Parallelen beibringen.” 

It is in fact the recent commentators on Job that feel the most assur- 

1 L. W. Batten in International Critical Commentary, ad loc. 

2 Plato, Republic v. 474 A, is an excellent parallel, or Dio Chrys. vii. p. 103 M. 
(Dindorf i. 114), cf. xxxii. p. 389 M. (i. 431). 

3 Shimei in 2 Sam. xvi. 13, where LXX has r@ xo! rdoowr. 

* Rackham: “ the ordinary oriental symptoms of excitement.” 

5 An interesting description of a hippodrome is given by Gregory 
Nazianzenus (Or. in laudem Basilii, xv., Migne, P.G. 36, 513 f.) Saep ody 
mwacxovTas totw ldeiv wept ras dvriOérovs lrrodpoulas rods giAlwmous Te Kal 
pirroeduovas, mnddow, Bodcw, ovpavge méurovor Kbviv, Hyioxotor KaOjpevor, 
malovor Tov dépa rots Saxrédos, ws udorié. kTA. This passage is correctly quoted 
from Gregory Nazianzenus by John of Damascus (Sacra par. 7. 31) but 
erroneously ascribed by Wettstein to Gregory Thaumaturgus. 

Job ii. 4, 



ance about the interpretation of this passage in Acts. It is, according to 
Jastrow,! reminiscent of Job ii. 12, where the three friends of Job when 
they first saw him in his misery “ lifted up their voice and wept, and they 
rent every one his mantle and threw dust upon their heads towards heaven.” 
Buttenwieser following Weizsicker translates firtotvvrwv Ta iwarva ‘ rent 
their garments,’ and adds that these acts are “‘ not an expression of wild 
fanaticism, but rites customary under such circumstances. The object 
is to avert from themselves the curse that is likely to fall on the blasphem- 
ous: ‘ He who puts himself in a state as of one accursed will not be harmed 
by the curse, having made himself immune against it.’ ” * 

Such an interpretation of Acts xxii. 23 would bring our series to an 
interesting conclusion, for then practically all the gestures could fall under 
the same heading, avoidance and deprecation of blasphemy. Whether it 
be the shaking of dust from the feet at Antioch, the rending of garments 
at Lystra or Philippi, the shaking of garments at Corinth, or here the 
gestures with both dust and garments, it is the old prophylactic of magic 
against blasphemy that is always involved. The Jews count it blasphemy 
for Paul to claim a divine mission to the Gentiles, Paul counts it blasphemy 
for the Jews to reject the message, the Gentile praetors or strategi at 
Philippi count Paul’s un-Roman teaching blasphemy, and of course Paul 
and Barnabas shudder with horror at being worshipped at Lystra as gods.* 

It must be admitted that if such an apotropaic purpose is the origin 
of the gestures, neither the author nor the readers of Acts were probably 
aware of it, certainly not in the instance at hand. For the proper gesture 
for sorrow, and probably for blasphemy, was to rub dust, earth, or ashes 
on the head. This is often associated with torn garments,‘ and if we are 
to see this combination in Job we must suppose with Jastrow that the 

1M. Jastrow, Jr., The Book of Job, 1920, p. 204. The same writer had 
made an extensive study of ‘ Dust, Earth, and Ashes as Symbols of Mourning 
among the Ancient Hebrews’ in Journal of American Oriental Society, xx., 
1899, pp. 133 ff. 

2M. Buttenwieser, The Book of Job, 1922, p. 44, quoting Pedersen, Der 
Hid bei den Semiten, 1914, p. 102. The Old Testament or Semitic civilization 
in general was no poorer in gestures of disgust, aversion, etc., than it was in 
vocabulary to correspond; cf. wag the head (Lam. ii. 15, Ps. xxii. 7), clap the 
hand (ibid. and elsewhere), shake the fist (Zeph. ii. 15), pluck out the hair 
(2 Esdras i. 8). But the reader of the English ‘throw dust in our eyes’ at 
Num. xvi.¥14 should be w